Finding God in "The Lord of the rings"

[LoreMaster]

Well, the story of the downfall of Numenor seems quite similar to Adam and Eve in the Garden. Just as they were allowed to eat from every other tree in the Garden except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, so the Numenoreans were given gifts. However, they could not set foot on the Undying Lands. Satan tempted Eve, saying God knew she would become like God if she ate the fruit. She ate from the forbidden tree, and Adam ate also. Sauron deceived the Numenoreans into attacking Valinor, saying the Valar knew men would become as powerful as they if they disobeyed the Ban and set foot on the Undying Lands. The results are similar too. Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden, and the Tree of Life was guarded so they could not eat from it. God placed a curse on the earth. When Numenor attacked, the Valar called upon Eru, and he removed the Undying Lands from the circles of the world and Numenor was destroyed.

I'll hopefully be able to share some other things later.

[Leto]

Actually, I always thought the story of Numenor was a lot like the story of Atlantis. Which I suppose could also have a common root as the story of Adam and Eve and the garden, or might possibly even be the root of the story. But anyway...Numenor was a high society, advanced in many ways beyond the more primitive people of Middle Earth, across the sea. Like the Atlanteans, they had influence amongst the people of Middle Earth and taught them many things. But in the end, pride was their downfall, as they listened to Sauron and deemed that their technology was great enough to reach 'heaven'...as punishment the island was destroyed, and only a few faithful survivors remained to spread what was left of their culture and knowledge in Middle Earth. Sauron's influence could definately be seen as the 'serpent' in the garden, telling the humans that the fruit would not kill them, but that they were forbidden it because God wished to restrict them from knowledge. Tolkien has bits of many different mythologies in his own, from Hebrew and Christian to Greek, Norse, and British/Celtic. Of course, all these styles of mythology can be seen to have common elements, as well, having influenced eachother...not to mention the underlying 'truth' which they all portray, encoded symbolically in the cultural subconscious...Tolkien's mythlogy is no different, as he had an intimate knowledge and understanding of language and mythology of many cultures, and no doubt tapped into that subconscious truth.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by LoreMaster
Well, the story of the downfall of Numenor seems quite similar to Adam and Eve in the Garden. Just as they were allowed to eat from every other tree in the Garden except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, so the Numenoreans were given gifts.

Of course, Adam and Eve didn't storm the gates of Eden in hopes of overthrowing God and the angel band....;)

[Goro Shimura]

Yes... but both Adam & Eve AND the Numenoreans rebelled against god.

The Doctrine of "the Fall" is probably the most important doctrine in Christianity after the existence of God. Why else would you need a Saviour if there wasn't anything wrong??


LotR is built on (through the Silmarillion) the idea that there is a Creator-God and that history is primarily concerned with man's struggle with the consequences of The Fall. And that's just the backdrop of the setting!!

In the foreground we see scenes that are primarily concerned with resisting temptation (Gandalf, Galadriel, Faramir, Frodo...), the consequences of succumbing (Gollum, Saruman...), and the beauty of repentence (Boromir...).

That's why Christians see things of theological import on almost every page!


PS Hey Maven... sorry if I was rude. Didn't mean to run you off!!:(

[ms Greenleaf]

You will dislike me for this strongly but so many horrible thing have been done in the name of god. That I would have to say the ring though not god god is good is very like many peoples way ofinterpreting god. Power

[Goro Shimura]

Originally posted by Walter
Aaaah yes...lying in a boat, gliding upon Nen Hithoel....going down the Rauros Falls...how beautiful.... Walter...

How can you say this?

[Ariana Undomiel]

You will dislike me for this strongly but so many horrible thing have been done in the name of god. That I would have to say the ring though not god god is good is very like many peoples way ofinterpreting god. Power

I think I don't understand your statement. Could you please explain.

~Ariana

[LoreMaster]

I also see parallels between Satan and Melkor. Melkor was the mightiest of the Ainur, just as Satan was the greatest of the angels. Melkor brought discord into Iluvatar's theme, and later opposed the Valar in Arda. Satan rebelled against God and has been His enemy ever since. The book of Revelation shows that Satan will be bound in the bottomless pit before the start of the Millenium. Similarly, Melkor was bound with a chain and placed in the Void. Revelation says that at the end of the Millenium Satan will be released to stir up a final uprising against God, after which he will be thrown into the lake of fire. Melkor is prophesied to come out of his confinement and wage war against good, before being slain at the Last Battle.

[Goro Shimura]

Do you think it would have been more beautiful if Boromir had died like Saruman?

[Goro Shimura]

Hmmm...

Well... I think Gandalf was concerned about what would happen to Saruman if he died in a foul mood. It was really sad: a real waste. If only he had humbled himself....

Now Theoden, OTOH... that was a Glorious departure if ever there was one. I guess nowadays we have not much concept of honor so we don't appreciate that sort of thing.

Boromir could have died in disgrace... and yet he not only kept his honor, but died protecting the Halflings. I suppose it can only be beautiful to someone if they believed in life (and judgement) after death. To a Christian, death has lost it's sting.

(Stephen... stoned to death. Peter... crucified upside down. Paul... beheaded. Andrew... crucified on an X shaped cross. Thomas... martyred in India.)

[Mrs. Maggott]

My, my, my, this is a DEEP thread. I would like to present a few comments regarding some of the things that have been touched upon:

1. Rings have many meanings, frequently good. When the Prodigal Son returns home, his father puts "a ring on his hand". Wedding bands signify an eternal bond without beginning or end. Rings frequently denote a deep association between the wearers or between the wearer and the giver. The Irish claddah ring (two hands with a crowned heart between them) is NOT supposed to be purchased by the wearer but GIVEN as a token of eternal friendship.

2. Tolkien did not write LOTR as an allegory like Lewis' "Great Divorce" or "Pilgrim's Regress". HOWEVER, having said that, many of the themes in the book (the Quest, the "hidden king" etc.) run through all of literature and have a religious and frequently Christian foundation. Certainly, Tolkien's Creation myth has many things in common with Biblical themes. Therefore, it is not difficult to "find" God in LOTR.

3. Death is not evil in and of itself. Certainly Christians - of which Tolkien was one - believe that death is merely a passage through which all must pass unless one is alive at the time of the Second Coming. Those who meet death in LOTR frequently find forgiveness thereby for past actions.

Boromir dies well after succumbing to the Ring. Aragorn tells him that he has not "failed" but "triumphed". He dies giving his life for another and so is accorded honor in this last great act of sacrifice.

Theoden's death is another triumph. He rises for one last great act of Kingship and lays down in peaceful death. Indeed, the death toll, especially in the battle of the Pelannor Field is great but all who die in defense of the good one senses go to a great reward.

Even Gollum's death, unintentional as it is, is the act which delivers all of Middle Earth from the thrall of Sauron.

On the other hand, the death of the Witchking is depicted an end to darkness; his passing dismays his followers and enheartens his enemies. But, who knows? Maybe it was a blessing for him so long enthralled to his Master and his Ring.

One of the saddest passings is Saruman who has not been able to conquer his pride (the FIRST deadly sin) in order to take advantage of the forgiveness offered to him by his former enemy. He dies in ignominy, murdered by his own servant, a perversion of the relationship between Frodo and Sam. Sam is willing to die for his Master while Saruman's servent wants only to kill his.

LOTR is a great canvas upon which the author has "painted" many things, some beautiful, some ugly, some magical, some quite prosaic but all steeped in truth. Surely in such a work there exists the Hand of God for all to see who desire to do so.

[LoreMaster]

A similarity to the Bible can even be seen in the lifespan of men. In both the Bible and Tolkien's writings about Ea, men's lifespans decrease over time.

[Goro Shimura]

Mrs. Maggot,

Thanks for putting into words the things that I wish I could say!

-g

[LoreMaster]

I've been reading a book titled J.R.R. Tolkien, and I've learned the connection between Tolkien's including the Valar, dwarves, and Ents in his stories and his interpretation of a certain passage in Genesis. This passage speaks of the "sons of God" marrying the daughters of men, producing a race called the nephilim. While I don't agree with his interpretation, I think it's another example of the Bible influencing Tolkien's work. Apparently the Valar stem from his opinion of the identity of the "sons of God" as good angelic spirits. He thought of the nephilim as being a race of great beings, and using his knowledge of language and mythology(and I suppose his imagination), connnected them with the dwarves and found a name for the Ents.

[LoreMaster]

The idea has occurred to me that the line of Halfelven, or at least the Numenoreans, may have been a special race like the Jewish people are to God. Does anyone think this idea may have a little bit of credibility?

Also, a little while ago I tried to look at the list of Avatars but couldn't find it. Could anyone help me figure out where it is and how to access it?

[Flame of Anor]

LoreMaster, in order to get an avatar, you must first reach one hundred posts. I also believe that you have to make your own avatar because i haven't found it either.

-Flame

[Mrs. Maggott]

Stupid technoboob question number God-knows-how-many: what's an avatar? :confused:

[Mrs. Maggott]

Ah, thank you. I have absolutely no idea what I am capable of doing on this machine - or, rather, what the MACHINE is capable of doing. I can turn it on and off and use the keyboard. Sadly, my idea of hi-tech is the doorknob!

Perhaps I will ask my husband, daughter or son-in-law (the Mac specialists) if I can do that and if so, how. I should be able to find a picture of a mushroom SOMEWHERE! :rolleyes:

[Bucky]

Long, long time, folks.

"Hello, & it's good to be back here in Middle Earth."

I just returned from a loooong trip to a galaxy far, far away........ :D

Playing OBI-GYN_Kenobi at theforce.net

Personally, I REALLY liked AOTC - more each time (7).
When's my VHS coming in the mail? ;)

I also had computer problems & had to get a new server to acsess ESPN.Com, & this site was on my old server. That's a BIG problem for the computer ignorant like me. :confused:

Fortunately, my 12 year old daughter was here today to help me log in through I.E. ;)

So, I figured I'd hit the site & just say "I'm baaah-aaack." :rolleyes:

And what's the first thread I see?
The never ending 'Finding God in TLOR'......

Well, I'd love to tell you how great it is to be in love with Jesus & how you can meet Him & fall in love with Him too, but I might get in 'trouble'......

PM me if you'd like to know more.

So, I'll just say this:
I find TONS of Christian parables in TLOR.

Before I was a Christian, no, I never did, but now I do......

The one part of the story that moves me deepest is Sam's selfless service to Frodo. He lays down his wants, desires & hopes just to serve others (specifically, Frodo) - just what God wants us to do.

Sam even goes so far as to give Frodo HIS share of the water when he's beyond parched, and then doesn't even tell Frodo - just like God wants us to do: "When you give, do not let your right hand know what your left hand is doing... When you pray, do not stand on the street corner & announce it like the (insert translation) 'religious people' do. Do it in secret & your Father in heaven will reward you."

Then, there's Sam's 'unquenchable Hobbit cherriness' as JRRT writes. He has such grit, determination, perseverance........
He finally carries Frodo when Frodo can't walk.

He never gives up. Finally, when the stark reality sinks in that he's going to die without getting out of Mordor, he turns it to a resolve of granite to finish the task at hand - "I have finished the race (set before me by God)" as The Apostle Paul says at the end of his life.

I wish & pray I can have more of Sam's personality in me.....

God Bless You All.

December 18 approaches & AOTC will be a distant memory........
:eek:

[Mindy_O_Lluin]

Oh no! If this story were a Christian story, then poor Frodo must be, well, ......not in heaven. He was unable to let go of the ring (sin) of his own free will but had it wrested from him. Maybe his leaving for the havens (purgatory?) so soon after returning to the shire was a symbolic representation of his spiritual death.

[Mrs. Maggott]

LOTR is Christian from a MORAL perspective, but not from a CREDAL one. Tolkien himself declares LOTR to be a mythopoeic creation and not an allegory; it is, of course, rooted in his Christian beliefs but only insofar as its moral parameters are concerned, not its plot line or characters. Certainly God can be found there, but it is not an attempt by the author to "graft" Christianity onto his imaginary world.

[Mindy_O_Lluin]

As others have said, morals are not exclusive to Christianity.
I was being facetious above, indicating that taking the LOTRs literally is similar to reading the bible as literal. You can 'find' god in any inspiring book, yet label it differently, depending on your religious frame of reference, as most people here are doing.

(edit. removed disrespectful part.)

[Mrs. Maggott]

Every "creed" whether it is "religious" or "political" or a combination of the two, has an ethical/moral belief system. However, many people do not understand that "morality" simply means a set of beliefs, not necessarily that which we are used considering either ethical or moral.

For instance, in Tolkien's works, the forces of evil have an "ethical belief system" that is diametric to the ethical belief system held by the forces of good. It is not that the evil folk of Middle Earth have NO morals, but, rather, that their "morals" are antithetical to that which that Tolkien presents as true and right, the so-called Judeo-Christian/Biblical moral ethic which is found within all his writings, including LOTR.

[Elf_Maven]

Thank you, Mrs. M!

And now I'll share my favorite quote (well, one of them) from LOTR that seems to sum up the Christian perspective.

Sam awakens in Ithilien after he and Frodo are rescued from the foot of Mt. Doom: "Gandalf! I thought you were dead! But then I thought I was dead myself. Is everything sad going to come untrue? What's happened to the world?"

I have to imagine that this is what it will be like for the Christian who dies on Earth and awakens in heaven, surrounded by those who had died before him. IS EVERYTHING SAD GOING TO COME UNTRUE? Absolutely! Some day it will, and Tolkien knew it.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Another beautiful sentiment of that nature appears in the book "The Last Battle" from The Chronicles of Narnia, by C. S. Lewis. In all the other books, the children had been sent from Narnia by Aslan back to their own world, (England) when they had finished their task. When they all find themselves together, surrounded by all that they love in the New Narnia, the Lion looks at them and says (paraphrasing since I don't have the book before me) to the children that they "don't look as happy as He wants them to look". They reply that everything is so wonderful, they are so alive and everything is so perfect that they dread having to leave and go back to their world. To which the Lion says that they will NEVER have to leave because they are, what is called in the Shadowlands (life on earth), DEAD!

[Mindy_O_Lluin]

People of other religions may be inspired to the exact same thought upon reading that paragraph from LOTR. Only their heaven is populated only by muslims, or only by souls with good Karma, or only by a feeling of pure Love from combined souls in One.

[Mrs. Maggott]

I was speaking of what inspired and motivated the author, NOT the reader. If you look at most religions in the world, their moral ethic is probably quite similar. Certain things are seen as good (compassion, kindness, forgiveness, loyalty, courage, love etc.) and certain things are seen as evil (cruelty, betrayal, spite, hate, envy, deceit etc.). Therefore, anyone whose religious beliefs echo these absolutes will, perforce, find God in LOTR as well as other works by Tolkien.

There are, however, OTHER moral ethics: one is the Utilitarian ethic of atheistic Secular Humanism (a religion according to 22 separate decisions by the United States Supreme Court) which has NOTHING in common with the ethic above. It is a burden-benefit ethic, situational in nature and without absolutes: that is, nothing is in and of itself absolute, there are no objective truths, everything depends upon one's point of view etc. Then there is the anti-moral ethic of evil. If you wish to "see" what that is, I recommend that you read C. S. Lewis' "Screwtape Letters" for a real "demon's eye view" of the moral ethic of evil!

Tolkien was a Christian and therefore it is understandable that his world's moral parameters are Christian. But that does not mean that Tolkien's world would not appeal to non-Christians who hold the same moral beliefs even though they hold them under the name of another religion.

[Elf_Maven]

Mindy, you're correct that people of other religions may receive the exact same inspiration from that scene in Tolkien, but inspiration is not equivalent to reality. When I claimed that quote as revealing the Christian perspective, I did not mean that it summed up a relative truth or a belief system that might be similar to that of other religions.

Christians don't merely believe (mental assent), they KNOW the truth---an absolute truth, an objective reality separate and distinct from their individual or collective "point of view." Tolkien's writing is steeped with that truth and many of its manifestations, even though he did not (according to many of his assertions) consciously design it to be. The fact that the Judeo-Christian moral ethic overlaps some others is merely incidental.

[Leto]

Christians don't merely believe (mental assent), they KNOW the truth

They THINK they KNOW the truth. Just as everyone does, they believe that they 'know' the truth. Tolkien was inspired by his religion, which he believed to be the truth, and created something beautiful for All. As with any creation, art, music, writing...it's meaning ultimately depends on the receiver, not the creator. The reader's experience and beliefs determine what is drawn out of it. That is what is so beautiful about art, in all its forms...once it is created, it has a life of its own apart from the creator, with meanings that were never even imagined by the creator. It becomes a part of the 'larger' world, where many thoughts and ideas interact, and it lives and grows. Lord of the Rings is a creation which touches on universal principles that we all feel and understand inherently, however each person interprets them...there is 'truth' that cannot be avoided. However, that truth transcends any religious definitions or boundaries. This is proven in by the very fact that these truths come through, so magnificently, in a work of fiction...the truth is not dependent on any belief of human creation, but displays itself through them. The fact that the Judeo Christian moral ethic overlaps with others is the 'proof', not an exception. The Universe's truth displayed through Nature, from which Humans came, experienced all they know, and based their societies and religions on...Primal Virtue. The virtue you will experience when emulating Christ, when contemplating the sutras, when sitting in stillness and complete sincerity. The Truth.

[Bucky]

Mindy,

Where did anyone compare TLOR vs the bible LITERALLY?

TLOR is a story, written by a man.

The bible is the inspired word of God written down by people as The Holy Spirit of God lead them....... :eek:

I was simply writing MY views of the 'qualities' that Sam posessed as being very much in line with the values God wants His believers in Christ to have & show to others.....

"When you did it to the least of them, you did it unto me." as the 'historical' Jesus allegedly said........ ;)

Oh, btw, My understanding of scripture is that there is no purgatory.
Purgatory would mean that there is a reward/punishment system based on our own good deeds. This would mean that Jesus Christ's death was not FULL PAYMENT for our sins, & scripture clearly states that faith in Jesus's death & resurrection alone brings salvation.

'By GRACE you were saved, lest any man (or woman) should boast.'


Mrs Maggot: If the US Supreme Court has declared 'secular humanism' a 'religion' (and I am sure you are correct), it makes me wonder why THAT particular 'religion' is being taught in our public schools when the name of Jesus, or The Ten Commandments can't be said or shown. Even the words 'one nation under God' are declared 'unconstitutional', yet 'secular humanism' can be tought as fact....... :confused:

[Mrs. Maggott]

There are certain things which are common to shall we say the majority of people. In the West, this is called "Natural Law". It allows most of us to recognize "good" as opposed to "evil". Certain values are almost universally considered "good" and, conversely, others are considered in the same manner to be "evil". Love, kindness, courage, compassion and selflessness are universally recognized virtues while hate, cruelty, cowardice, hard-heartedness and selfishness are seen as vices. There have been perverted societies where evil things were exalted (Nazi Germany, for instance), but these are the exception rather than the rule.

In the past, this "Natural Law" was an indication to people that someone OTHER than men set the rules and the norms of behavior. That "Someone" was - and continues to be - seen as God. Interestingly enough, if you look back through the old pagan cultures, you will find many of the scenarios involving "God" that eventually were written in both the Old and New Testaments. For instance, the Genesis story of Adam and Eve is found in many varied (and separated) cultures throughout the world as is the belief in a God-King-Priest who dies for the salvation and reclamation of all mankind (usually in the Spring).

However, in Tolkien's works, his Christian truths are limited to the tale's moral vision; he does not attempt to "graft" a credal statement onto the tale except in the most general way (the creation tale in the Silmarillion). But certainly, no one can say that the author made any attempt write either an allegorical Christian myth or, conversely, to remove any possible hint of a Divine Presence since neither would be true. :)

[Mrs. Maggott]

If the US Supreme Court has declared 'secular humanism' a 'religion' (and I am sure you are correct), it makes me wonder why THAT particular 'religion' is being taught in our public schools when the name of Jesus, or The Ten Commandments can't be said or shown. Even the words 'one nation under God' are declared 'unconstitutional', yet 'secular humanism' can be tought as fact...... <quote>

Ah, my child! That's a question that has been asked by a great many people without getting any satisfactory answer whatsoever! It seems that SOME "religions" are more equal than others and that the famous "wall of separation" (which, of course, DOESN'T exist!) only applies to traditional Christianity and Judaism while all manner of New Age, neo-pagan, Eastern mysticism, humanist and even occult practices are just fine, thank you! :rolleyes:

[Thorin]

Yes, it is no wonder that many countries look at the US and Canada with perplexity. Here "In God We Trust" is embedded in their coinage and God and patriotism unofficially goes hand in hand with the culture, yet prayer and Christianity is banned from the schools. However, someone walking around with a upside down pentagram on their shirt can walk around the school, and evolution runs rampant in the curriculum...

But I get off topic (Dodges the slave driving, whip of the mighty Ancalagon. :)

[Bucky]

Thorin: I bet you hate PJ's Two Towers already. ;)

NO SPOILERS, PLEASE!

I've been avoiding seeing any myself.

Funny, the more I see TFOR, the more things I nit-pick about (mostly major character changes like Aragorn). But, I still like the movie & am looking forward to TTT, even though I only had to see the poster on a movie theatre wall to know they've changed a few things.....

Sorry to digress but I know Thorin hates 'em......

>>>>However, in Tolkien's works, his Christian truths are limited to the tale's moral vision; he does not attempt to "graft" a credal statement onto the tale except in the most general way (the creation tale in the Silmarillion). But certainly, no one can say that the author made any attempt write either an allegorical Christian myth or, conversely, to remove any possible hint of a Divine Presence since neither would be true

EXACTLY.
Too many people want to purge the existance of God from EVERY part of their lives & be an apologist for the PC view of 'tolerance' & 'no absolutes'.

Mrs Maggot, we gotta talk.
"I'll be watching you - I like the way you think" as Sam Kennison tells Rodney Dangerfield in 'Back To School'. :D

[Mrs. Maggott]

My dear Bucky:

I would be pleased to speak with you at anytime.

What I find most interesting about the p.c. movement is the constant demand for TOLERANCE, but it only goes ONE WAY! Most pc people (not speaking about computers here folks, though I do use a Mac) are extremely INTOLERANT of people, ideas and/or ideologies with which they disagree; they permit absolutely NO "debate" about "their issues".

Furthermore, far too much of what they present as unshakable fact and ultimate truth they hold by virtue of belief alone; that is, they cannot PROVE their position and, quite frankly, they often hold it in the face of absolute proof of the opposite. It is very much like the attitude of Jane Fonda who once said, "I must be right, I'm so sincere!" :rolleyes:

The sad thing is that this attitude has almost destroyed our colleges and universities which should be the CRADLE of intellectual inquiry, debate and discovery! Today in many institutions of "higher learning", anyone who doesn't "toe the ideological line" is shunned and harassed sometimes to the point of being driven out altogether. The truly strange thing is that these strongholds of godless atheism are run as theocracies. The only difference here is that what is being worshipped is man and, worse still, not man as "individual", but man as embodied in The State. In fact, it has been said if you truly want to find a living, breathing Stalinist, a leftover from the era of hard-line Communism, you have to go to Yale or Vasser! :rolleyes: :confused: :rolleyes:

God was kind to allow Professor Tolkien to enjoy his years in academia freed from political correctness. He wouldn't have lasted today....:(

[Bucky]

Mrs Maggot, you sound like an Apologist - a good one at that..... :)

You ever heard of John Rankin?
He's from our neck of the woods, goes into places like Harvard & Yale & debates the leftest of the left, showing them what God intended before the Fall & how fallen humanity's twisted sense of 'right' leads to the problems we now see plaguing the world........

>>>>In fact, it has been said if you truly want to find a living, breathing Stalinist, a leftover from the era of hard-line Communism, you have to go to Yale or Vasser!

Did you notice where I live?
Guess where Mrs B works? :eek:
Not a Prof, in computer support.

But, what you say is true. I heard a Prof from Princeton quoted as saying that each culture decides right & wrong.
So, he's asked, "Then why were the Nazis wrong for killing the Jews?"
His answer: "Because we won the war & decided the values." :confused:


However, back on topic, yes, JRRT worked in an era when 'traditional Judeo-Christian values', an ugly word nowadays (and often the victim of revisionist history), were the ACCEPTED norm, the foundation upon which the freedoms that Britian & it's many colonies (US included) enjoyed were based on. Not freedom to call every abomination of 'sin' a 'right', but freedom to CONTROL yourself.

Take out that foundation, and the freedom becomes an excuse to go wild.......
Then, the Gov't has to step in & legislate morality & the lack thereof. :(

So naturally, JRRT was free to express his Christian beliefs in school, the press, his works......

Is TLOR a religious parable of Christianity? No, absolutely not.

Are their moral themes to which a Christian can relate?
Yes, of course there are.

Funny, I was thinking about the musical 'Guys & Dolls' when my daughter was in it (she played the missionary girl)......

It's set in the 50's.

The bad guys are gamblers, not drug dealers with AK-47's.

At the end, the missionary girl, who falls in love with a gambler, gets married to him. He has an unusually strong knowledge of the bible (even as a gambler) & his real name is an old Hebrew name taken from the bible.
One of his gambling buddies has a dream that he's going to hell.....
And gets converted to Christianity & joins the mission.....

If that was now, well, look at 'Pleasantville'.
There, the 'good guys' are the modern 'enlightened' people who go back to the 50's to show those people how to really live life to the fullest & break off the chains they are in.....

See how the worm has turned?
Back in JRRT's day, there was clear cut & accepted rights & wrongs.
Now, 'Judeo-Christian values' are fundamentalistic 'chains' to hold us back.

'In the last days, evil will be called good, and good called evil' :rolleyes:

[Mrs. Maggott]

I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who said, "Liberty is doing what one OUGHT to do; license is doing what one WANTS to do."

If you want to see how much the culture has changed, watch "It's a Wonderful Life", the film they show every Christmas about a man who does what he OUGHT to do at the expense of what he WANTS to do. In the end, he finds that his life is more wonderful than anything he could have planned for himself even had he been "free" to follow his own inclinations and desires. Interestingly enough, after a personal disaster, when he returns to his home town after he has been granted his wish (by his rather bumbling guardian angel) that he had never been born, the place is filled with strip joints, x-rated movie houses, gambling dens and honky tonk bars; it is named "Pottersville" after the evil old man who had tried for years to overcome first the man's father and then him.

When the man is granted his PRAYER (not WISH!) to return to his former life - even though it might mean disgrace and even prison - he runs down the middle of the street with the snow falling and everything decorated for Christmas. The movie theater is showing The Bells of St. Mary's (you remember, an inspirational film with a Roman Catholic theme). It all ends in joy and as he holds his little daughter in his arm, a bell on the Christmas tree jingles and she tells him that, "....teacher says, every time a bell rings, an angel gets his wings!" Now, can you imagine a teacher saying THAT to an eight year old in TODAY'S schools!!

How different it has all become! And how sad for the children of today who will never know that time of innocence and goodness that I was blessed with in my childhood. And God bless J. R. R. Tolkien for bringing into the world a thing of wonder and beauty to which we may all bring our heavily laden spirits for at least a few moments of wonder and purity in this weary world. :)

[Mindy_O_Lluin]

Wow, Leto. That was beautifully put!
I think you dwell close to the 'veil'.

Where did anyone compare TLOR vs the bible LITERALLY?
I had been reading through the 1st 3 or 4 pages of this thread and saw mentions of the story as allegory to christian belief such as the ring being "sin".

By the way, I grew up Catholic and since Tolkien was way before even MY time, I must assume 'Purgatory' was a hardcore belief of his, also.

Since then some one mentioned the absoluteness of Christain moral codes as opposed to the flexibility of Situational Ethics. How then do you resolve (via Christian ethics) situations from the LOTR and the Hobbit, such as Frodo claiming the ring for himself at the end, thereby giving into tempation, and Bilbo essentially stealing the ring from Gollum and then justifying his guilt with the 'gift' story, or taking the Arkenstone and hidding it when he knew it was rightfully Thorin's. Neither one of them even has the luxury in LOTR, of a chance to 'repent' or 'be saved' since there is no mention of God or anything Christain in the story. In fact I understood Middle earth to exist way before any biblical history.

BUT, I can pick out explicit pagan references (Wizards, Necromancers, Numerology, crystal balls, herbology), and lots of political references (Gandalf and Denethor's talks, and beast-like ORCs as the demonized 'other'), and even evolution references (The flying steads of the Nazgul and the sudden appearance and spead of hobbits).

What I was getting at, is that, ANY book, including the bible, can draw inspirational truths -- even tarot cards, or quija boards. But some people cannot grasp or allow for, interpretations outside of prescribed set of beliefs. It is like seeing LOTR as a subset within Christianity instead of Christianity as a subset within LOTR.

Edit: Thanks Bucky for bringing up "Pleasantville" which is another story just begging for open interpretation. I could see the Adam and Eve story clearly, with the change from black and white to color as crossing over from 'unknowing innocence' into the world of awareness, bringing with it all the evils of being human, the sensibilities of Love, Liberty, and the need for responsible choice, but also, the joys and pain of 'Knowing'.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Since then some one mentioned the absoluteness of Christain moral codes as opposed to the flexibility of Situational Ethics. How then do you resolve (via Christian ethics) situations from the LOTR and the Hobbit, such as Frodo claiming the ring for himself at the end, thereby giving into tempation, and Bilbo essentially stealing the ring from Gollum and then justifying his guilt with the 'gift' story, or taking the Arkenstone and hidding it when he knew it was rightfully Thorin's. Neither one of them even has the luxury in LOTR, of a chance to 'repent' or 'be saved' since there is no mention of God or anything Christain in the story. <quote>

Yes, Christian morals are absolute. However, situational ethics are not "flexible" in the sense that they allow for human weakness. Rather, they are "flexible" in the sense that they provide NO moral foundation. It would be like trying to find one's way about without any fixed points of reference: no map, no stars, no landmarks. That doesn't work! Christian "absolutes" provide that map and those stars and landmarks. This is what one is SUPPOSED to do. However, the Faith then goes on to provide assistance for those who "lose" themselves - repentence and forgiveness. But if you don't KNOW what is "right and wrong" from the beginning, at least according to a moral code, then it is very hard to forbid ANYTHING, even the Holocaust or slavery or the gulag. When nothing is intrinsically right or wrong, then EVERYTHING is acceptable providing one can define the circumstances appropriately.

Bilbo FOUND (not stole) the Ring. He had no idea it was Gollum's until there was no possiblity of returning it to him without being killed in the bargain. The Arkenstone was Bilbo's hope of stopping a great conflict by giving one of the parties a bargaining tool which the other party could not resist. Thorin had told Bilbo to choose what he wanted of the hoard. He did not preclude the stone until AFTER Bilbo had picked it up and decided to keep it against the time he might be able to use it to avoid bloodshed. When the stone was revealed, he immediately admitted his involvement in spite of the danger in which that placed him. But Bilbo did not "steal" the stone, because he did not intend to keep it. Yes, perhaps his actions were less than "honest", but he did the best he could (morally) in a deteriorating situation.

Bilbo is in fact haunted by a feeling of guilt about the Ring (hence the "present" story). Of course, he isn't a thief, but his natural honesty recognizes that the Ring is NOT his. Of course, it isn't Gollum's either. Furthermore, the Ring works its own "magic" on the hobbit, making him secretive and distrustful which is not his nature. But surely, Bilbo's acquisition of the Ring is far less blameworthy than that of any previous "bearer" and hence, he is able to relinquish it without hurt.

Frodo claimed the Ring because, weakened by torture, poison and want, his mind was overthrown by the Ring in a place wherein it was all powerful. Even Galadriel's phial could not resist the evil of Sammath Naur. I believe had he been able to reach the Fire sooner and in better condition, he would have been able to destroy the Ring himself.

As far as "forgiveness" is concerned, neither hobbit requires it because their actions are either innocent or blameless because of reasons beyond their control. And in the story, truly EVIL individuals ARE given the opportunity to repent of their wickedness - but, alas, they choose not to do so.

[Bucky]

>>>>>What I was getting at, is that, ANY book, including the bible, can draw inspirational truths -- even tarot cards, or quija boards. But some people cannot grasp or allow for, interpretations outside of prescribed set of beliefs. It is like seeing LOTR as a subset within Christianity instead of Christianity as a subset within LOTR.

Those things may give you inspiration, but my belief, shared by the God of the bible, is that the source
(if it's not a scam) is deceiving spirits.

Look at that John Edward guy (crossing over)......
Funny he should share the name of a famous preacher who inspired a Christian revival in New Enbgland in the 1700's.

He is either a charleton, or he is tapping into a spirit realm where demonic spirits are manipulating people they've been bound to since (probably) childhood. Of course they know what Uncle Joe did with you 35 years ago.......

Yet, those people think that their dead relatives are talking to them.

Are they getting comfort?
Yes.
Are they getting deceived also?
Yes.


>>>>>BUT, I can pick out explicit pagan references (Wizards, Necromancers, Numerology, crystal balls, herbology), and lots of political references (Gandalf and Denethor's talks, and beast-like ORCs as the demonized 'other'), and even evolution references (The flying steads of the Nazgul and the sudden appearance and spead of hobbits).

Agreed. That's the difference between fantasy & reality though.

when you move into using these things as a source of information, you are entering into witchcraft in The God of the bible's eyes.

And, I'm not one of those Christians who was running around yelling about Pokemon cards.
Or, Harry Potter, although I'LL NEVER read it. That's just because I don't want to. Tolkien set the bar too high for anyone to match in my experience. I always read other fantasy works like Terry Brook's Shanara & say 'The skullbearers are a rip off of the Nazgul.", etc......:rolleyes:

[Elf_Maven]

With all due respect Leto, you're wrong. Jesus declared that He is "the way, the TRUTH, and the life." If you don't believe what He said in a real, literal sense, then you have to decide whether this "man"-- whom even many non-Christians respect for his moral teachings--was crazy or a liar, because who else would make a claim like that?

True Christians KNOW the truth. It is not a thinking, or a feeling, it is a knowing that goes beyond the sense of "believing" as it is understood in our culture. I'll try to provide an analogy:

A true Christian is like a person with perfect eyesight living in a society in which everyone else is color-blind---but these people don't know they're color-blind. In fact they don't know what color blindness is, because they cannot conceive of color. Those who cannot see the color, cannot understand what color is. Because it is impossible to really explain something that they HAVE TO EXPERIENCE to understand, these color blind folks cannot believe in such a thing as color. But it doesn't follow that their lack of understanding means that color is only something that those who can see it THINK they believe. The color is real, but most cannot see it and think that those who can are "off on some trip."

It is the same with Christianity. I could spend days trying to explain to you why Christianity is not just another religion, or belief system, but really, you have to experience it for yourself.

[Mindy_O_Lluin]

So true Walter.

That is why I so like this quote I swiped from Bucky.
'In the last days, evil will be called good, and good called evil'
"Isn't that odd now" - that people of opposite perspectives can utilize the same quote.
Or that each perspective believes they see the obvious delusion and intolerance in the other.

If one wants a good brain workout decifering what is truth and what is fantasy, Check out the video "Left Behind".
Unfortunately, one thing I DO believe in is the power of suggestion, which may alter prophesies into self-fulling prophesies, when believed too absolutely. This, plus the current-events in the world today, makes this whole religion thing pretty scary.

[Elf_Maven]

Walter, unfortunately, you're right---there is a polarization that takes place---and violence and evil in the name of ANY religion does not solve any problems (Crusades, Inquisition, IRA, Al Qaida, whatever) it just creates hatred and distrust.

But, by accepting ALL religions as "true" there is a deception that takes place, in which people who DO know the truth are seen as divisive and confrontational, even as evil. If you were my friend and you saw me about to unknowingly walk over a cliff because others were doing so and had convinced me it was the right way to go, you might seem devisive when you tried to tell me not to agree with them and you'd definitely be confrontational as you argued and pleaded with me to try to keep me from continuing in a direction that was leading to death. Would you be evil, though? I don't think so.

[Mrs. Maggott]

There is no falsehood so difficult to defeat as that which has at least some basis of truth contained within it. Most pure lies are easily recognizeable and refutable. But the lie that contains within it elements of truth is VERY difficult to either recognize or refute.

I would suggest that whomever is interested in this read C. S. Lewis' "Screwtape Letters". These are presented as letters written by a major demon to a "nephew", a new minor tempter working on earth. Mr. Lewis' insight into the workings of evil minds is without peer. It will make one sit up and take notice of how often we have all been led astray, deceived and undone by the very "advice" that "Uncle Screwtape" so freely gives. And in the end, one of the things one learns about true evil is that there is no place within it for friendship or any other type of "affection". Once affection, comradeship, brotherhood, selflessness or self-sacrifice exists, then true evil cannot endure. :)

[Mrs. Maggott]

There is a very old saying: "the proof of the pudding is in the eating". This is an update on Scripture in which Christ says, "By their fruits, you shall know them."

It is true that none may see "the abyss" - yet all know that it exists except those who delude themselves into believing that all that does exist is "the here and now". Therefore, like C. S. Lewis, one has to look at the arguments and carry them to their inevitable conclusion (I would suggest his book, "Mere Christianity" in which Lewis expounds on his INTELLECTUAL - NOT EMOTIONAL - journey from atheism to Christianity). Many of the things that various religions expound sound good or "the same", but careful study reveals that they have another foundation from which they spring or another conclusion to which they lead. Thus, "heaven" - the concept of a place where those blessed by "God" go after earthly life - can mean different things to different religions. In at least one, the aim is "nothingness", and end to all existence. This is NOT the "Kingdom of God" of the Christian wherein we will become ALL that we were meant to be rather than this present "half-life". In others, one may reach Eternal Bliss by doing things that are patently "evil" (like flying planes into buildings). Frequently, there are actually different "belief systems" existing under the name of one "religion" and sometimes, to the amazement of common sense, they are mutually exclusive!

The problem with "religion" is that man frequently (like Mr. Jackson) decides to "improve" upon Divine Revelation (where that exists, of course). In other cases, it is someone's fantasy or a people's "explanation" for things that cannot be grasped rationally because of ignorance (like the Papua New Guinea natives who built mock-ups of WWII cargo planes to "entice" these "gods" down to the ground to be worshipped!).

In the final analysis, I still stand by the contention that God wants us to THINK! If someone tells you to abandon your intellect and just "believe" (a la Jim Jones), then wherever that person is coming from, it AIN'T God!

[Walter]

My friend and I went to a fair. Not a trade fair, a religious fair. But the competition was as determined, the advertising as loud.
At the Jewish stand we got folders that said God is all-merciful and the Jews are his Chosen People.

At the Islamic stand we learned, God is full of mercy and Mohammed his only prophet. Salvation can be achieved by listening to the only prophet of God.

At the Christian stand we detected that God is love and that there is no salvation outside the Christian church. Only a member of the church does not risk eternal condemnation.

As we were leaving I asked my friend: "Now, what do you think of God?"

He answered: "Well he must be narrow-minded, fanatic and cruel."

Home again I asked God: "What do you make of this all? Don't you realize that you have been brought into discredit for centuries?"

God said: "I did not organize this fair. I would have been embarrassed to even go there..."

Anthony de MelloTranslation errors on my account...

[Mrs. Maggott]

Fr. Alexander Schmemann of blessed memory, once posited something that is not taught by the Orthodox Church, but that he thought was the truth all the same. He said that upon one's death, one met Christ and at that time, all confusion, all ignorance, all mistaken notions would be dispelled. One would be face to face with God and have to decide whether or not one WANTED to cleave to Him. Not whether one "believed" because all doubt would be gone; knowledge would be full and complete. Those who wanted to be with Him would be "saved", if you will and those who rejected Him would be "damned".

Interestingly enough, this would cut entirely across "religious" lines! Many of the "greats" in Christianity, when the actually met Christ, would reject Him because He did not "fit" their concept of the Son of God. Many who had believed in other faiths or followed other gods would meet Him and know Him for what He is - and love Him.

Of course, the good Father was speaking of those people who had not lived lives that would preclude their having this one last opportunity to accept God (unrepentant doers of evil, for instance), but of everyday, ordinary folk who did the best they could and wanted to please God however they envisioned Him.

This understanding of "salvation" may be best seen in the final volume of The Chronicles of Narnia by C. S. Lewis, "The Last Battle". It answers a good many questions about how people who ostensibly believe different things can still be pleasing to God. I recommend ALL of the books about Narnia. They are supposed to be "children's books" but don't you believe it! ;)

[Bucky]

The explanation of salvation can best be explained by this:


Just pray & ask God, "If you're here, show me the truth."



>>>>>>>>>Jesus declared that He is "the way, the TRUTH, and the life." If you don't believe what He said in a real, literal sense, then you have to decide whether this "man"-- whom even many non-Christians respect for his moral teachings--was crazy or a liar, because who else would make a claim like that?


That's true. How could he be JUST a man & a great moral teacher, but not God?

If anyone said wonderful things now but claimed to be God, we'd say he was nuts, not a 'great moral teacher'.

As I told my father before I went on a Missionary trip to Russia " Jesus is alive & lives in me. Either I've discovered the secret of life, or I'm insane. You decide which. I already know, but can't prove it to you." :confused:

[Elf_Maven]

Mrs. M, just to get more off the subject than we already are (thread was supposed to discuss the book FINDING GOD IN THE LORD OF THE RINGS by Bruner and Ware), let me ask what you think of Lewis's science fiction trilogy---but especially how you like TILL WE HAVE FACES?

(sorry for all caps for titles, I'm still too cyber-illiterate to know how to do italics)

[Mrs. Maggott]

Till We Have Faces is a marvelous book, but its tough going for someone who's just starting Lewis. The Great Divorce is easier as is the "Space Trilogy" (Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra and That Hideous Strength).

Frankly, I don't think we're really off the subject, just somewhat tangential to it. Lewis was a very good friend of Tolkien and they rather influenced each other. So familiarity with Lewis' writings help the reader to see certain subtle inner meanings in Tolkien that might otherwise have been overlooked. Lewis' intentions - even when he's not writing allegory - is rather straightforward; that is, he is writing to express spiritual truth. Tolkien, on the other hand, does that, but those truths are expressed WITHIN his stories. The stories themselves are not created as vehicles for those truths. That's why it is much easier to miss Tolkien's moral values than Lewis. In Tolkien, the story can carry you along to the point where you miss its more subtle aspects. It's a "cracking good yarn" as they say.

P.S. I don't know how to do all those things they do with quotes and italics and bolds etc. either. That's why I capitalize things I want to emphasize. It looks cheesy, but until I know how to do the other stuff, I'm stuck with it! :rolleyes: :confused:

[Elf_Maven]

I loved Till We Have Faces the very first time I read it, but I didn't understand more than a smidgen until at least the third time! So, no, I wouldn't recommend it to a first-time Lewis reader. Narnia I have to read all the way through at least every couple years. I'm disappointed that the most recent reprinting was reordered by the publisher to begin at the "beginning" with Magician's Nephew. If you start there, you don't have the delight of being drawn into a story and later finding out its origins. BTW---I read on the Net just this week something about the success of LOTR opening the doors for some director to tackle a new Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe in 2006. I can't wait!

[Mrs. Maggott]

I just lost the post I was doing re: filming of C.o.Narnia. so if this shows up together with the other I was doing, I apologize.

In sum: if it is filmed again, I sincerely hope that the Director is slavishly faithful to the author's story because, unlike LOTR, this is ONE story that cannot be "improved upon" without destroying the meaning. I shudder to think that it will fall into the hands of someone who does not understand, appreciate and therefore be willing to forego his or her "artistic license" in favor of the author's vision of the story.

[Elf_Maven]

I'm with you on that one! This is one story in which certain actions and reactions of the characters can be almost silly and meaningless without an understanding of Lewis's intended meanings. Not that the theme of good versus evil is obscured, but what a loss if the allegory is not developed.

[Ariana Undomiel]

I too have been tracking the news that there is going to be a new Narnia movie. Truth be told, Walden Media-which is owned by the 9th richest man in the world and who is also a Christian - is producing a live action film for each of the Narnia books and each one will have budget and special effects that will be right up there with The Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter. The director of the films is the same guy who directed Shrek and Jim Henson's creature shop is doing the special effects. If you go to www.walden.com you can sign up to recieve e-mails about the upcoming films.

~Ariana

[Ancalagon]

Originally posted by Ariana Undomiel
Truth be told, Walden Media-which is owned by the 9th richest man in the world and who is also a Christian
~Ariana

There is something about this that quote Arianna I find rather odd. I am sorry, but I simply cannot equate '9th richest man' and 'Christian' without many of the parables jumping out at me. I am wrong to feel that way?

[LoreMaster]

According to what I read, one can choose his own custom avatar when he reaches 100 posts. I didn't see anything about not having an avatar until 100 posts.

Also, I was hoping I'd get some feedback about my suggestion in my last post about the line of Halfelven or the Numenoreans being a special race like the Jews are to God. Any comments?

[Mrs. Maggott]

There is something about this that quote Arianna I find rather odd. I am sorry, but I simply cannot equate '9th richest man' and 'Christian' without many of the parables jumping out at me. I am wrong to feel that way? <quote>

Yes, you are. There is nothing intrinsically evil about wealth. It is the LOVE of money that is the greatest evil, NOT money itself. Of course, the source of one's wealth matters. If one has "earned" one's fortune in pornography or drug running, then you might say that there IS a problem. However, if one has earned it by the sweat of one's brow - and that includes "mental" sweat - then it is certainly not "tainted". Of course, the Scripture DOES say that from those to whom much is GIVEN, much will be EXPECTED. That means that we are expected to use our material gifts in a way that is pleasing to God.

But do not be deceived by the story of the rich young man who was told that to be "perfect", he should "sell all that he had" and give it to the poor - for what most people "forget" to put at the end of that particular instruction is the rest of it: and come and follow Me. In other words, that instruction was given to a very special young man who was in fact an already good man who could have been an almost perfect one had he not allowed his possessions to prevent him from doing so. But "selling all one has" is not a blanket prescription to ALL followers of Christ. The Lord's friend Lazarus was a WEALTHY man and the Lord never demanded that he impoverish himself in order to remain His friend.

If the gentleman in question is actually going to produce C.S.LEWIS' Chronicles of Narnia (and not some Director's "vision" of the books), then he will indeed be doing God's will introducing Lewis to a whole new generation of young people. God bless him for - and in - his efforts! :)

[Ancalagon]

Very well put Mrs M;) Don't get me wrong, I am actually a little miffed by the question of wealth and Christianity, it is not new, it has always rested heavily on me. Not that heavily of course as I am far from wealthy! I suppose it boils down to one's own understanding of how it should be distributed in the eyes of God. I was thinking more along the lines of the 2 people who enter the temple, the Old Woman who gives one coin and the wealthy man who gives a bag of gold! When you think of it in those terms, I suppose the question remains, should the wealthy man have given all?

Useful tip; for quoting a post, in each post by a user, there is a 'quote' button in the bottom right. Go to the post you wish to quote, press that button and you can add your own post beneath.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Ancalagon
I was thinking more along the lines of the 2 people who enter the temple, the Old Woman who gives one coin and the wealthy man who gives a bag of gold! When you think of it in those terms, I suppose the question remains, should the wealthy man have given all?

Useful tip; for quoting a post, in each post by a user, there is a 'quote' button in the bottom right. Go to the post you wish to quote, press that button and you can add your own post beneath. [/B]

Oh, frabjous joy! How to make a quote without copy/paste! Bless you my dear!

As for the "widow's mite", what the Lord meant was that she gave out of her substance while they gave out of their surplus. It was not necessary for the rich man to give all, but apparently in his case, he took what he needed and gave to God out of the "leftovers" and not even ALL the "leftovers". If I remember correctly, this is what Cain did and that's why his sacrifice was unacceptable to God since He is supposed to be the "first" and not the "last" consideration when it comes to giving. :)

[Elf_Maven]

[(I would suggest his book, "Mere Christianity" in which Lewis expounds on his INTELLECTUAL - NOT EMOTIONAL - journey from atheism to Christianity).]

And, if you like to read allegory, try a lesser known book---Pilgrim's Regress. Obviously, this is Lewis's take-off on Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress"; not quite so obviously, the word "regress" in this context does not mean the opposite of progress. It means of "the act of REASONING backward." In this book, Lewis represents his intellectual journey of considering all kinds of philosophical worldviews.

[Mrs. Maggott]

I have mentioned this work - in fact, in almost the same words - in a previous post. Of course, it may be somewhat difficult for the young since many of the "isms" Lewis encountered would be unknown to them today.

[Ariana Undomiel]

There is something about this that quote Arianna I find rather odd. I am sorry, but I simply cannot equate '9th richest man' and 'Christian' without many of the parables jumping out at me. I am wrong to feel that way?

I think that Mrs. Maggot covered it pretty well. But I wanted to add that one way that this wealthy man is using his money is to buy up movie companies and have them produce family oriented moral films. The Chronicles of Narnia are just one of the major starts.

~Ariana

[Goro Shimura]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
If I remember correctly, this is what Cain did and that's why his sacrifice was unacceptable to God since He is supposed to be the "first" and not the "last" consideration when it comes to giving. :) Hi Mrs. Maggot...

Another interpretation of the Cain story goes like this:

Remember Adam and Eve made a garment of fig leaves, right? And then God made them garments from skins of animals. He may have then set forth to them the principle that only a blood sacrifice is acceptable as a covering for sins.

Hebrews 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. (KJV)

Then Cain ends up offering vegatables... but Able sacrificed a lamb. So Cain may have been intentionally violating the "blood sacrifice" directive and Able may have been knowingly obeying it.

It may have been just an accident... and God may not have yet explained the idea as clearly as he did in Hebrews.

In any case, Cain did not respond well to correction after the fact....

[Goro Shimura]

Originally posted by LoreMaster
According to what I read, one can choose his own custom avatar when he reaches 100 posts. I didn't see anything about not having an avatar until 100 posts.

Also, I was hoping I'd get some feedback about my suggestion in my last post about the line of Halfelven or the Numenoreans being a special race like the Jews are to God. Any comments? I don't know about this one....

The elves are a seperate race altogether. I think Tolkien created them in order to contrast them to ourselves: Elves are "immortal" in this life... and yet they are trapped within the circles of this world.

The Halfelves had to make a choice about this immortality. The Numenoreans were accorded special treatment and given a prime location near Valinor. (Tolkien himself thought of the Aragorn's United Kingdom as being a sort of an enlightened version of the Holy Roman Empire with Minas Tirith being the seat of power.)

The Jews, on the other hand... were called out to be a special Nation in the very center of the Nations of the World (instead of off in a corner like Numenor), they were to be a people through whom God revealed himself to the world... through their Law He was to reveal that all men are guilty of sin and in bondage... and from their line of kings came the Christ child.

Though I do see some similarities between the history of the Numenoreans and 1st and 2nd Chronicles... and though I do see Aragorn typifying the coming of Christ the King... I don't quite see the "specialness" of the Numenoreans as being quite on par with that of the Jews.

However they do seem to have a bit in common with the Northern Kingdom that we see in the books of the Kings. They were both cut off swiftly after they fell away....

[Goro Shimura]

Originally posted by Ariana Undomiel
I think that Mrs. Maggot covered it pretty well. But I wanted to add that one way that this wealthy man is using his money is to buy up movie companies and have them produce family oriented moral films. The Chronicles of Narnia are just one of the major starts.

~Ariana Before people pick on this guy too much....

If I know who you're talking about... I think he first became 9th richest man... and THEN he realized that building empires wasn't all that fulfilling and then started looking for real answers to ultimate questions.

It's not like he became a Christian and then spent the next fifty years of his life amassing all of that wealth.

[Ancalagon]

I wouldn't think this guy would concern himself too much about the little people picking on him, however, the fact remains that it is simply difficult to equate huge wealth with Christianity. How one professes to be a true servant of God, yet has amassed such material wealth to be considered the worlds 9th richest man is not how I understand Gods teaching. Then again, I am sure the fact he owns multiple film studios and that he is making films of moral fibre is as good as putting his money into the stock market. Let's face it, there are many out there who would buy into the ideals of 'moral' films, and all the money they pay into the studios can go toward making more. How much is enough? I am not singling out this man alone, as I have also asked the question of Churches and Wealth in The Guild of Ost-in-Edhil.

Mrs Maggot, you mentioned the age old quote regarding 'the love of money' which I wonder to myself; at what point do you have so much that you don't love it anymore? I suppose that brings me back to 'how much is enough?' Is giving 10% of your earnings to Gods work really enough?

My real question is; could this man, or could even the church, dispose of all their wealth and trust in God to provide for them? Now that would be a testament to their faith.

[Ariana Undomiel]

I think that it is not our duty to judge him or his wealth. Perhaps he felt called to use his talents to obtain the money that he has and to turn around and use it for good, which he apparently is doing. I don't think we should judge a person's faith by the size of their bank account. Some people are blessed by God with great wealth and some are not. It is however the duty of those who are blessed with great wealth to do what God calls them to do with it. Why is it so hard to imagine that an imensly wealthy person could be a Christian?

~Ariana

[Ancalagon]

21Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
22When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
23Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.


One thing I notice between the Old and New Testaments is a very different approach to accumulation of wealth. The Old tends to recognise that the more good you do for God, the more wealth you might amass, whereas the New speaks more clearly about disposing of wealth, leaving it behind. I wonder then who among those who are wealthy nowadays, tend to consider the words of the Old Testament more relevant to their position, as it seemed more acceptable before the arrival of Christ.

I know that seems a very simplistic view of wealth, especially in relation to the teachings of Christ, however, there is an undeniablably different take on it between the two. Of course I am playing somewhat 'devils advocate' here, but the question stills burns away in the back of my mind.

[Ariana Undomiel]

Look, I know well the various parables told by Christ and the teachings He gave, but I still do not think that He spoke against wealth. What He taught is that it is important to be willing to give up what we have if Christ asks. Some people are asked, and perhaps others are not. Christ said it was 'hard' for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he did not say it was impossible. I think that what bothers me is that people just find it hard to imagine a very very wealthy Christian. It is important that Christians with wealth remember where their wealth comes from so that they can always listen to what the Holy Spirit compels them to do with their wealth. We cannot say that if a person is rich they cannot be a Christian, but what we can ask is if they are being good stewards of the that which has been bestowed upon them.

~Ariana

[Grond]

****Moderator Announcement****

Ariana Undomiel
I am trying to send you a PM but your PM inbox is full. You must delete some of your received or sent posts to make room for this message. Please do this now.

All other users.... it is imperative that the staff be able to contact you. Please make sure to keep your PM boxes are regularly cleaned by deleting old PM's both in and out so that you may receive messages from the Administration when warranted. :

Thanks.

[Elf_Maven]

[you mentioned the age old quote regarding 'the love of money' which I wonder to myself; at what point do you have so much that you don't love it anymore?]

Actually, if you think about what this verse of scripture is saying--the love of money is the root of ALL evil---you realize that the rich, poor, and all of us in between are equally guilty. ALL is an absolute word; it doesn't leave room for anything else! If we take this word literally, then it is saying that for all the evil in this world, whether large scale or small, the motive can be traced back to the love of money. The amount of money has no bearing on the attitude of the heart, and it is impossible to have "enough" or "so much that you don't love it anymore."

A poor man may have just as much of a problem with love of money as a rich man, if he hoards what he does have, refuses to be generous within his means, and makes "the expense" his motive for every decision. The point is that behind many sinful acts, whether gross or petty, the MOTIVE can be traced back to the love of money, in one way or the other.

For instance, a man of modest means (someone I knew) purchased his business suits at the finest tailor---after all, he had to maintain the right image at his company, right? But meanwhile, his wife was told to find her outfits and clothing for the kids at the nonprofit secondhand store. With love of money as the root of evil in his heart, he chose to put his image ahead of providing for his wife and children.

I would say he may have had a problem with the love of money. On the other hand, I think love of money, like many other sins, may be evident only in the heart and in the motives, where only God knows the truth.

Anyway, the point is that one does not have to be rich in order to have a problem with the love of money.

[Ancalagon]

And that final point is very valid Maven. However, I am asking also, when is enough made? At what point does an individual say; I have made enough money, time to stop and recognise that making money is unimportant, because I am already fabulously wealthy..............or should I try and make it to number 8 in Forbes?

[Elu Thingol]

I just took a look at the latest arguments here and thought I'd add my thoughts.

Anc, you left out the rest of the parable, and in this situation it is very relevant.

18 "Which ones?" the man inquired.
Jesus replied, " `Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,' and `love your neighbor as yourself.' "

20 "All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?"

21 Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, "Who then can be saved?"

26 Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

I think that last sentence there sums up everything.

I will also answer your question.

If a man's wealth stop's him from following the first commandment Matthew 22:37-38
37 Jesus replied: " `Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38 This is the first and greatest commandment.
then he is not saved

Notice that Jesus did not mention the first commandment to the rich man when he was asking him which commandments he had kept. This is because Jesus knew that the man did not follow the first commandment. Instead he loved his money and not God.

[Elf_Maven]

Excellent observation, Elu! It's so obvious, yet I'd never considered that aspect of the conversation before. Thank you!

[Mrs. Maggott]

Mrs Maggot, you mentioned the age old quote regarding 'the love of money' which I wonder to myself; at what point do you have so much that you don't love it anymore? I suppose that brings me back to 'how much is enough?' Is giving 10% of your earnings to Gods work really enough?

My real question is; could this man, or could even the church, dispose of all their wealth and trust in God to provide for them? Now that would be a testament to their faith. <quote>

The first thing to remember is this: it isn't only the RICH who love money! How many poor and middle class people spend their whole lives in pursuit of money to the exclusion of everything else?

As for the rich man entering heaven: there are several reasons why this is difficult. A wealthy man has a great deal on his mind. If you don't own a lot, you may spend time worrying about your lack, but not nearly as much as a wealthy person spends worrying about what to do with his assets. To focus one's life on possessions (amassing them, protecting them, disposing of them profitably), rather limits one's ability to focus on other (and in Christ's mind) more important things. Furthermore, a rich man is likely to neglect doing those things which he should do simply because he is of the opinion that there is "always time" to "get right with God". The parable of the rich man with the great harvest is an example of people of wealth for whom life has become so "protected" that they fail to notice it going by - as it ALWAYS does.

The monastics say that every day they think about death. This is not to be morbid but to put in perspective the day to day problems and joys that arise and to be able to live as if every day were one's last day on earth. How differently we would ALL act if we knew that the world would end tomorrow! How things that are unimportant to us now, would become monumental and how the things we think so important would cease even to be of interest.

[Rogue666666]

Sorry, but I just skipped from the first page of this discussion to the last, and I was wondering. Hasn't the subject changed a little?

ANY WAY. I think what Klessard sayed was good, but he should have backed it up with scripture from the Bible. Since the Bible is God's word, and God cannot lie, than it is the truth. If you can backup what you say with scriptue, than it is far more likely to stand the test of time. :) And for you ppl who were wondering who or what God is, the Bible put it very simply: God is love.

[Flame of Anor]

You are correct Rogue on both points. And guys we need to stick to the topic of the thread.

-Flame of Anor

[Elf_Maven]

Uhhhhhhh.............we haven't stuck to the topic of this thread at any time. The thread was begun by someone who had read about Bruner and Ware's book Finding God in The Lord of the Rings. I reactivated it because I wanted to hear from others who had read that particular book. Instead, we keep discussing our own personal experiences with finding God in LOTR or our opinions about how those of various religions might perceive the moral values expressed and observed in LOTR.

[Galaad]

Klessard, this is for you.
I am a French student in English, so please I apologize for any mistake in my English.I am not a specialist but I'm keen on the subject, and I think Christianity is essential in TLOTR,for example concerning the struggle between SEAGOL and his brother which is obviously linked to the Father fight between Abel and Cain.But it is not as easy as it seems since Tolkien was as interested in the religious aspect of life as in the legendary one, and there are as many things about Christianity as about Myths and Legends (for instance the Eves, the Ents...).
In my opinion, religious belief and dream are narrowly linked together.
C.U.

[RosieGamgee]

Since Tolkien was a devout Catholic, I feel that even if he didn't do it outright or on purpose he probably put bits of his faith into his book. You see the common themes of Good vs. Evil, mercy, love, etc. I don't think any of the main characters represent Christ, but Aragorn symbolizes him as "the crownless who again shall be king", Sam as, in a way, "the suffering servant", and Frodo as taking on the burden of the ring (sin) by choice and suffering for the sake of others. Also, though this is less important, I think that Elbereth probably represented the Virgin Mary. Middle Earth is like our Earth, the Undying Lands are like heaven. Good will always conquer over evil in the end. :)
Tolkien may not have written an outright allegory, but I think he did put into his writings the faith that he lived out every day. I don't know think you could be saved just by reading this book, but if you were already a Christian I think you could probably find God easily in these books, and reflect on the parallels between Middle Earth and ours.

[Galaad]

>Concerning the Middle-Earth, I'm sure you're right Rosiegamgie, but I read somewhere that Tolkien had also drawn his inspiration from World War II, and if this is true, it seems very easy to compare Sauron's army with nazism, and the extension of Evil throughout the world.
Besides, we know that to Tolkien, the Middle-Earth is a sort of representation of what the Old World was in some forgotten times, before everything.
But I do agree with you about the weakness of every "races" of beings in his universe.

[tom_bombadil]

I cannot belive ***Edited by Ancalagon*** why christians are trying to claim christianity is in everything yes i know tolkien was religous but i cant stand why they think christianity is in everything

[Galaad]

>I can understand your position Tom_Bombadil, since I am not a great believer myself (This doesn't mean that I think you're not a great believer too!), and that's why I tried to be soft in my answer to rosie gamgee; but as a student in English seeing this from France, I'm often forced to admit the current religious and Christian aspect of your culture, and for sure in your literature.
But as I said to rosie gamgee, I'm not sure Tolkien always wanted to give a religious tone in his works, and I even think that though he was a "devout catholic", he used to look the Bible as a sort of "recueil" of legends , as well as with the Nimbelungen (Sorry for the orthograh!).
Maybe someone who has a better knowledge on Tolkien's motivation than I have would be able to answer.

:D

[Elf_Maven]

Tolkien described Christianity as a "true myth." This is what he stated to C. S. Lewis.

His own statements about this concept indicate that he was trying to express the fact that the story---God sending His own Son to earth to redeem His creation---has the sustaining power of the cultural myths they both loved and understood, even while it is also both a true history and a despised and misunderstood religion.

[Mrs. Maggott]

For those who have posted opinions on this thread, I have another about an article that appeared in a Christian magazine which discusses LOTR in the book vs. movie theme but from the perspective of Tolkien's Christian viewpoint as expressed in the book. According to the author, LOTR is a salue to virtue in many different aspects and it is this perspective that the film fails to realize. However, it is a very interesting article and certain fits with this particular theme. I have asked if there is somewhere on the forum it could be posted or if anyone is interested in obtaining a copy since the magazine is hardly widely known.

If anyone from this thread is interested, I am going to see if I can get my husband to scan it into my machine and I will try to make it available. If he can't, I will just power-type it in and either e-mail or snail mail it to whomever wishes to read it.

Believe me when I say it is certainly full of information on this particular topic; that is, what Tolkien said and not what we perceive in his writings.

[Ancalagon]

Certainly there ought to be no issue with putting the link or quotes in this thread if it is relevant to the discussion. If it warrants a separate thread of its own, feel free to post it. If you have any questions regarding this, please PM me to discuss.

[Eriol]

What a great (and long) thread... and it's 'stickiness' always caught my attention. But it took a while to read through the 41 pages. Great discussions, even when they were a bit off the subject (like Darwinism). Now I feel I can voice my opinions. First, on the subjective side, I am inclined to feel as the Christians do -- I think I can perceive a 'veiled christianity' within LotR. Of course, this depends on what I think Christianity is, and there is room for argument about that, as anyone who read through the thread can attest.

Now for the objective stuff:

Author's intent x reader interpretation -- I think most people agree that if there was any intent about this, it was unconscious. I, for one, can't believe in an unconscious intent (after long analysis of the word 'intent'), so I think it all rests on reader interpretation. But that doesn't mean it is not there, as some people think -- unintended consequences still are, well, consequences.

Moral equivalence between the religions:

The case for veiled christianity rests heavily upon morality, as opposed to theology (not that the theology in LotR is unchristian -- is there such a word?). So, the people that think there is no such thing have a powerful argument when they say that the morality is LotR is not specifically christian, being generally 'human' morality. Now, I don't know much about eastern religions, so I won't talk about them, but I do know about (western) pagan morality as expressed in the works of the wise (philosophers and legislators of pre-christian times). Plato, Aristotle, Cicero (english spelling??), and others wrote about good and evil. And the 'virtues' (courage, temperance, prudence, justice, etc.) were well defined. For instance, Aristotle defined justice as 'the equal treatment of the equals; the unequal treatment of the unequals'. This is a good definition of justice, and christians should agree with it... but there is more in christianity that pagans never dreamed of. I am being a bit long-winded here. I am reminded of an example by Chesterton (who wrote a lot about the difference between christianity and other religions) that dealt with the virtue of mercy. Pagans thought that you should be merciful... up to a point, and then you should apply the law with full force. So, if a slave stole some wine, you could forgive him, but if he betrayed your house and sold important documents to your enemy he should be tortured and executed. This was considered 'justice'. Then Christianity came along, with the morality of 'forgive the criminal, but never forgive the crime'. So stealing wine was WRONG, and betraying you master was also WRONG -- equally wrong. And you should forgive the slave in both occasions, not once or twice, but seventy times seven.

Now, someone can say that there is great difference between christian theory and christian practice -- that the words are nice, but christians do not behave like that. This, of course, would be off the subject. The point here is that Tolkien was immersed in Christian theory from childhood, and therefore his notion of Good and Evil was dependent on Christian morality. The behavior of Christians is not the point. And the morality of LotR is this Christian morality, which, even if it is 'generally human', was not prevalent in pagan times.

Finally,

Finding God in LotR:

Well, I don't think anyone can find Him if he is not looking for him, so the atheists and agnostics have a point. And of course if you are looking for Him with all of your being, you will find Him anywhere. So the goal here is to find a 'golden mean', and rephrase the question in this way: Would a person that has had some schooling about God, but is not what people call 'religious', even though he heard a lot about Him -- the very common 'I don't like to think about this stuff' kind of guy -- find God in LotR? What do you all think, ladies and gentlemen? I think we can find moments of such beauty and purity that we experience a 'numinous' feeling, very small, but very real. I feel that way when I see beauty. And IF our hypothetical reader came from a Judeo-Christian culture (including Islam), and IF he was already beginning to think about transcendent matters, then yes, those scenes in the LotR could help him.

And even if he does not think about all that, he will get a very clear view of Good and Evil. Maybe he could even realize, like Tolkien did, that orc-talk is orc-talk, even if the speaker is a beautiful man, and that friendship is a kind of love, and many other small lessons that could be considered eternal, and that are a small window into God.

I wrote a lot. See ya!

[Goro Shimura]

Wow... you read the whole thread!?

You have a very thoughtful and balanced view of the matter, IMHO... and you even present it without sounding contentious. (I wish I had that skill!)

Thanks for addressing the "equivalence" question.

[Mindy_O_Lluin]

Yes Eriol - a very down to earth commentary. Thanks for bringing us back to the core of the thread. I personnally was not 'looking' for God in LOTRs - just for an escape - kind of like a different kind of drug. One that could take me away to a more idyllic, blissful, loving time and place, than the one I saw around me in the real world. So in that sense, I could see my own 'idea' of God, in the sublime story, the love, the detail, and the nature aspects, and also in the quest and struggle for 'right'. But I am not 'Christian', so I bristle at Christians claiming LOTRs as only their own.

[Elf_Maven]

Eriol, thanks for your thoughtful input.

Mrs. M, please post article, link, or whatever. If you should decide to start a new thread, mention it here so that I can go looking for it elsewhere. (And, if it's in WORLD Magazine, I've already read it and just need a refresher.)

[Mrs. Maggott]

The article is in Touchstone Magazine, October 2002. It is by Garrin W. Dickiinson and is entitled "The Subversion of Middle-Earth" (Tolkien's Symphony of Virtue Meets Hollywood).

As I said, I would be willing to type it in someplace or make a "document" out of it and e-mail it to whomever wishes to read it. The address in the magazine is www.touchstonemag.com. Maybe you can get it there. I have already quoted it in one of the threads about the EE.

[Elf_Maven]

Many of the articles from that October issue of Touchstone are listed with links, but not that particular one. Our MOD, Ancalagon, gave the go-ahead to type it in, so if you have the time and inclination, I, for one, will read it.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Where should I put it? Shall I start a new thread and if so, where? I do wish to be "correct" because I understand that not everyone can put in very lengthy pieces.

Thank you.

[Galaad]

>If you have any idea for a new thrad, don't hesitate, we'll see.Still, the article you were talking 'bout seems to be very interesting !*
Up to you !
[:-¤

[Galaad]

> If anyone is interested, I've just launched a new thread called "the One RING." Why not ?

[Galaad]

>Forget about it, it already exists and it hasn't been discussed for months.

[Mrs. Maggott]

My Dear Galaad - of COURSE we are interested. As soon as I finish typing dull, boring workers compensation cases, I shall happily seek it out! :p

[Grond]

Originally posted by Galaad
>Forget about it, it already exists and it hasn't been discussed for months. Then I encourage you to read the thread and post in it to restart the discussion.

[Goro Shimura]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
The address in the magazine is www.touchstonemag.com. Maybe you can get it there. I have already quoted it in one of the threads about the EE. Thanks for the great link, MM!!

This article is also good:

http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/15.1docs/15-1pg29.html

Here's a quote:The Lord of the Rings breathes mercy throughout. Tolkien faces the reality of conflict and death, but does not see them as the last word. Courage in battle is great, but even greater and stronger are pity and mercy. The Christian hero strives against evil, and the evil that he must ultimately conquer is within him; and he cannot do that by himself. To strive, knowing that apart from grace, victory is impossible, is the final heroism.

Grace works through mercy, and uses mercy to achieve its ends. Mercy is love as it exists in a world of death. Tolkien seeks to justify the ways of God to man, especially the way that man finds hardest, the gift of death. Without death, man could not achieve the greatest love, that of self-sacrifice, to die for another, as God himself chose to do. God allowed death in the world so that he, too, could die and give his life to and for his creatures. As Eriol pointed out, several people have been saying that LotR is not particularly Christian because all religions have a moral component and an idea of "good" and "evil." (Some even start bristling over this point!!:))

IMHO, your idea of God tends to have major consequences on your notions of heroism and morality. As John Ashcroft said... Islam is a faith in which you send your son to die for God. Christianity is a faith in which God has sent his son to die for you. (BIG difference!!)

I think the definitions of morality and heroism that are in LotR point back to distinctively Christian assumptions. Although there is some debt to the Eldar Edda, etc... (especially in the characterizations of the dwarves and the Riders) the central themes of the LotR deal more with Mercy (toward Gollum, Wormtongue, Saruman...), Repentance (Boromir-- or Saruman demonstrating the lack therof), Sacrificial Love (Frodo, Sam), Divine Providence ("coincidences", the Eagles, deliverence via Gollum), and the inability of Men to deliver themselves through their own power, strength, and intelligence. (In other words... it is infused with the major themes of the New Testament!!)

[Goro Shimura]

:eek: :eek: :eek:
The book is set in a prehistoric period long before the Incarnation, yet because Tolkien had tried to construct his world in a way that would faithfully echo the wisdom of the true Creator, and although "the Incarnation of God is an infinitely greater thing than anything I would dare to write," he had to ensure that the Incarnation of the Son of God would make sense within such a world. He even at one time constructed a fragmentary prophecy to this effect. The prophecy states that Ilúvatar will one day enter personally into his creation and heal it from within. It may be found in the "Debate of Finrod and Andreth...." From:
http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/15.1docs/15-1pg51.html

I'd say this is evidence that Tolkien was attempting to "hard wire" his myth in such a way as to be consistent with Christian fundamentals.

[Goro Shimura]

Originally posted by Klessard
Have you noticed how the ring is a symbol of sin ? A ring of power suggest the sin of pride. Isn't pride the first sin ? Satan was thrown into Hell for it, because he tried to have his throne above God and rule all.
And the fact that it makes you invisible when you wear it evokes i think, the sin of lying. Lying allows you to do plenty of things that people won't know about. Satan is the "Fathen of lies."
Sin corrupts and makes you unhappy. So does the ring. Everybody is tempted to have it, and they are blinded when they possess it. Isn't sin just like that ? This passage strongly supports one of Klessards initial assertions:
In our world, Tolkien’s "Primary World," March 25 is the Christian feast day of the Annunciation. It used to be called Lady Day, and was indeed the first day of the year. It is, of course, exactly nine months before Christmas, the Feast of the Nativity, December 25–itself the date on which the Fellowship of the Ring is said to have set out from Rivendell. In our world, March 25 is the day when Christ was conceived, celebrated with readings that describe the Virgin Mary’s "yes" to God (Luke 1:38).27

Why choose this date for the destruction of the Ring? Well, think what the Ring represents. The Ring of Power exemplifies the dark magic of the corrupted will, the assertion of self in disobedience to God. It appears to give freedom, but its true function is to enslave the wearer to the Fallen Angel. It corrodes the human will of the wearer, rendering him increasingly "thin" and unreal; indeed, its gift of invisibility symbolizes this ability to destroy all natural human relationships and identity.

You could say the Ring is sin itself: tempting and seemingly harmless to begin with, increasingly hard to give up and corrupting in the long run. Its destruction, therefore, is a type or figure of the great reversal of sin begun at the Annunciation when Mary welcomed the Word of God into our world. Her fiat, "Let it be to me according to your word," overturns the human refusal of God’s will that we call Original Sin.28 That sin also resulted in a kind of invisibility, as Adam hid from the Lord in the garden of Eden: "And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, ‘Where art thou?’" (Gen. 3:9). Also from:http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/15.1docs/15-1pg51.html

[Weathergirl2006]

I know someone said he didn't believe in people having to read inbetween the lines,But maybe he didn't do it purposely but truly it was his subconciuos(sp?) that did it.I can see that happening in mant liturature peices.

[Goro Shimura]

Um... Tolkien did dislike allegory.

But the Christian elements in his work are not accidental.

Dec 25 and March 25 aren't the most important dates in the book because of some sort of repressed subconscious impulse.

Tolkien was a thoughtful and intelligent Christian. He was deliberate and subtle in his efforts to weave Christian themes into his work... and he took great pains to reconcile anything that could be construed as being unorthodox or heretical.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Indeed, you are quite correct. But I think that many people misunderstand and believe that a story that has a "moral" is necessarily "allegorical". It is not. Even Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia is not strictly an "allegory". It is a retelling of the theme of creation and redemption through the medium of another world and its effect on people within this one. That is NOT allegory in the strictest sense. Now, Tolkien's "Leaf by Niggle" IS an allegory (the journey represents death) and the book "Animal Farm" is a definite allegory about the rise of Communism.

LOTR and the other tales of Middle Earth are based upon the author's Christian worldview, but that doesn't make them allegorical. However, one CANNOT divorce Tolkien's writings from his Christianity, nor would a Christian be mistaken to "claim" them as his or her own since if the tales are read correctly, no other "worldview" can be seen to apply.

[Galaad]

On 11-14-2002, I said in this thread that Tolkien had drawn his inspiration from WWII and nazism. :mad: I must apologize for this because that's exactly what Tolkien cudn't stand!Indeed, and that's what Goroshimura said when he used the word "allegory"; LOTR has nothing to do with allegory since it is not a poetic parabol of historical background.Nothing to compare with WWII.The only thing which can help to understand what Tolkien felt when he wrote LOTR is WWI because he lost most of his friends of Oxford there; obviously, he was deeply hurt and affected, and this is extremely present in the general themes of Frienship, Fellowship, Fighting for each other, Courage and discourage...So, hope you weren't too shocked by my ignorance!

[Goro Shimura]

If LotR was an allegory for WWII, then the ring would have been used to defeat Sauron. Barad-dur would have been occupied, not destroyed. And hobbits would not have made out all that well.

That's according to JRRT's Preface/Forward that may not have appeared in some of the foreign editions??

[Mrs. Maggott]

Nonetheless, I do think that Tolkien DID draw some inspiration for the situation as it existed in WWI and especially WWII. Prior to the "two Great Wars", warfare was the "job" of a career military. Civilians were seldom involved at least as soldiers. However, both World Wars found people who had neither the interest in nor the talent for "soldiering" being brought willy-nilly into the slaughter - and the casualty figures rose accordingly. What previously would have been "unthinkable" in European/British culture (non-soldiers fighting for King and Country) became commonplace. I do not believe that the situation of the hobbits being "co-opted" into the fight was not in some way influenced by this incredible change in the cultural traditions of Tolkien's world.

Secondly, I believe that Tolkien's endless armies of orcs were if they were not based upon, than they were certain influenced by Germany and the Soviet Union's incredible military machines. One has only to look at films of Hitler's legions marching - nameless, faceless, bent only on the will of their leader, AND the films of Russia's "May Day" parades before the Kremlin with the SAME thousands upon thousands of "nameless, faceless etc.", to see from whence Tolkien's "vision" of Sauron's AND Saurman's "armies" might have originated.

LOTR is NOT an allegory, but that does not mean that the author was entirely unmindful of what was going on around him. After all, his famous "spider villains" in both T.H. and LOTR arose because his son was afraid of spiders!

[LoreMaster]

I've suspected that the Iluvatar of Tolkien's writings was intended to be God Himself. The idea seemed to have some credibility, since Tolkien's mythology is set in our world and in one of his letters he referred to Eru as "God the Creator"(if the quote I read was accurate word-for-word in that part). The mention of a prophecy of the Incarnation seems to strengthen this hypothesis. I also saw a post elsewhere, Mrs. Maggot, in which, if I remember correctly, you said that we're all children of Eru. Does anyone have some input on this?

[Mrs. Maggott]

One of the things that has always irked me about the Good Professor is his constant ability to call the same things/people/places by several different names. I believe that you are correct: God/Eru/Illuvatar are one and the same. This is one of the reason's I have trouble remembering some of Tolkien's works, especially Lost Tales, Unfinished Tales, Lays of whatever. I no sooner learn the names of one group than another book is released and the whole crew is reintroduced with different spellings etc. etc. etc. It can drive a person CRAZY! :confused:

I'm going to need a book of "lists" which gives me ALL the names that Tolkien used for ALL his people/places/events etc. lined up together. That way, when I come across one that ain't familiar, I can know if it's a new guy on the block, or just one of the old familiars sporting a new name! :confused: :confused: :rolleyes: :confused:

[tom_bombadil]

oh well i suppose religon has done some good but it is still the tool of the authoritys used to opress and suck in peoples true personallity but im fine with it if you want to be christian just dont invole me

[Mrs. Maggott]

My Dear Tom:

I cannot speak for other "religions", but I can say only this. Christianity is NOT a religion, but a way of life. Those who present it to you as a set of rituals or "codes" are like the Pharisees of old who did not understand Judaism either. Furthermore, it is Christ's promise that He will not "take over" your "persona" and make you what HE thinks you should be, but rather, He will free you from all the bonds that keep you from being what you REALLY ARE. Thus, in submission to Christ, one finds not the "nothingness" of Nirvana, but one's true self - cleansed of all the detrius that accumulates throughout our fallen lives.

Marx once called religion "the opiate of the people" and he wanted to free them from what he probably sincerely believed was the "bonds" the prevented them from being "free". Instead, he founded his OWN religion, Communism, with its OWN "god", the State. Instead of freedom, people became more enslaved than at any time in the past. When the benificent Commandments of a just God were abandoned, men found themselves at the mercy of evil men and an evil government and paid for their foolishness with years of torment and death.

It has been said that when one no longer believes in God, it is not that one believes in nothing, but that one believes in ANYTHING. The concentration camp, the gulag, the mass graves of Pol Pot are what happens when fallen man and not God is the measure of our actions. Can fallen men even defile the decrees of God? Certainly. History is full of "Christians" who never knew (or wanted to know) Christ. But do their excesses nullify the Truth? No. Winston Churchill was once taken to task about this very thing when an atheist chided him about how bad men were even with the Church. To which Mr. Churchill responded, "Imagine how bad we would be WITHOUT it!" In his own lifetime, Churchill got to see the truth of his words lived out in Germany and Russia.

[Goro Shimura]

Originally posted by tom_bombadil
oh well i suppose religon has done some good but it is still the tool of the authoritys used to opress and suck in peoples true personallity but im fine with it if you want to be christian just dont invole me Just because you find a counterfeit, it doesn't mean that the real thing doesn't exist.

In fact... only valuable things are counterfeited! (Counterfeit brown paper???)

[Mrs. Maggott]

For anyone - religious or otherwise - I would very strongly suggest reading "The Screwtape Letters" by C.S. Lewis. It answers a great many questions and is great fun to read. :)

[Eriol]

We are funny animals, humans. We can't avoid believing in an Absolute in order to make sense of our lives. We are not like the other animals, that apparently live contentedly without ever wondering about these things. Some people put History in that place, some put the State, some put Aesthetics, others put Themselves... but most of them put Truth. Most of us, religious or not, are addicted to Truth, and search for it throughout our lives.

Seek and you shall find...

[LoreMaster]

One thing which I think a Christian could be rightly concerned about in Tolkien's writings is the Valar. Although they are not placed on the same plane as Eru(God), their position as the Powers of the World is certainly not biblical. It seems that Tolkien was trying to compromise between the monotheism of Christianity and the polytheism so prevalent in mythology.
Another problem for those who embrace Protestantism, such as myself, is the devotion given to Elbereth/Varda, which, according to what I've read, correlates with the Catholic adoration of Mary.

[Mrs. Maggott]

The early Christian Church - East AND West - revered the Theotokos (the Mother of God as she was pronounced in Church doctrine and remains to this day in both the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches) for several reasons. Firstly, of course, she was the means by which Christ became Incarnate. As Mother Theresa once opined, "No Mary, no Jesus."

Secondly, the first of the Ten Commandments which addresses Man's relationship to his fellow men and not God - is NOT "Thou shalt not...", but "Thou shalt honor thy Mother and thy Father..." If Almighty God felt that we are bound by His Word to honor our own parents, why then should He feel differently about His OWN mother? He certainly honored His Father!

Thirdly, Christ is presented as the New Adam, beginning Creation anew and putting all mankind into a right relationship with God that had been severed by Adam's disobedience and fall. So therefore Mary is considered the New Eve in that she said "yes" to God's choice for her to be the mother of (and "enflesh") the Second Person of the Trinity. Since all of mankind from the fall of Adam was "engineered", if you will, to bring forth this one woman, why then is it so unusual that the Church reveres her? Mary is not the means of salvation - only Christ is that - but Mary made salvation possible in offering herself to God as the means of Christ's incarnation. There is nothing "polytheistic" or "pagan" in this reverence for perhaps the most important HUMAN BEING ever created, only a recognition of the importance this one