Finding God in "The Lord of the rings"

[Glamdring]

Does anyone else see the irony in this thread:
A bunch of very religious people, comparing TLOTR (a fairy tale) to the Bible (also a fairyt.......nevermind)

[BlackCaptain]

haha...
Neways....

You can compare anything to anything pretty much...

Take the movie... the Matrix for example...
You can compare it to the 2nd coming of Christ

Or take the Movie... Snow white...
You can compare that to the bible, because the bible tells about how we should overcome temptation (the apple).

My point is, you can compare mostly anything you pull out of the air (except for the Simpsons) to something that will cause great contreversy, and Tolkien himself said:

Other arrangements could be devised according to the tastes or views of those who like allegory or topical referance. But I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew oldand wary enough to detect its prescence. I think that many confuse 'applicabaility' with 'allegory' but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.

This is saying that he dislikes Allegorys (wich would be basing a story on the bible, or another story of some sort) and wouldnt do such a thing. thats what i got out of it.

Ill probly get some more critisizm like i do from most of my other posts, but hey, its what i think...

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by MorgulKing
haha...
Neways....

You can compare anything to anything pretty much...

Take the movie... the Matrix for example...
You can compare it to the 2nd coming of Christ

Or take the Movie... Snow white...
You can compare that to the bible, because the bible tells about how we should overcome temptation (the apple).

My point is, you can compare mostly anything you pull out of the air (except for the Simpsons) to something that will cause great contreversy, and Tolkien himself said:

This is saying that he dislikes Allegorys (wich would be basing a story on the bible, or another story of some sort) and wouldnt do such a thing. thats what i got out of it.

Ill probly get some more critisizm like i do from most of my other posts, but hey, its what i think...

There is a very great difference between an "allegory" (a story written to be construed as a revelation of something else - such as Animal Farm is intended to depict the rise of communism) and a story which contains within it things that are "allegorical". All stories contain elements which can be construed as allegorical of some larger truth, but that doesn't make the story in and of itself, an "allegory".

For instance: Frodo has many Christological virtues. He takes upon himself the "burden" of the Ring as Christ took upon Himself the burden of the sins of mankind. He is willing to sacrifice his very life to carry out his obligations to the Fellowship. The "allegorical" inference with Christ in this matter is obvious. In the end, Frodo must "depart" and go "into the West" as Christ "ascended" back to His Father's Kingdom and so forth.

LOTR is certainly not an allegory, but like so many myths, it contains enough allegorical substance to keep speculators like ourselves very busy indeed.

[A Shireling]

I agree, Mrs. Maggot. The Bible contains allegories; i.e. the parables which Jesus taught in the gospels. (Characters and objects represented other, deeper truths than were contained in the parable itself.) But there are many other stories, notably in the Old Testament, which are presented as factual but also contain elements that are representative of spiritual things.

It seems to me that Tolkien's story of the ring was NOT an allegory--- after all, as it has been pointed out, he said that it wasn't. Besides, the plot as a whole, if taken allegorically, fails. I mean, if it's an allegory of the world and sin and redemption etc., which character represents Christ???? Christ was a perfect man because he was God in the flesh--- are any of the savior-type characters in LotR perfect? No, they all have failings. Which character would represent mankind? There could be many. In an allegory, all the pieces fit together like a puzzle and "work" consistently. But all the analogies in the LotR break down at some point.

That doesn't mean that certain things that happen in the story don't remind me of spiritual truths. They do! And that's why I agree that God can be "found" in aspects of the story, but not the story as a whole. I can see, and am encouraged, by Gandalf's death, because it reminds me of Christ who, when he died, was said to have "descended to the lower parts of the earth." And obviously I am encouraged by Gandalf's resurrection, because it reminds me of Christ who "died for all, that they who live should no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf."

So I agree that it is not an allegory, yet it does contain some elements which are representative of deeper truths. I think that might be what Tolkien meant by applications which take place in the mind of the reader.

[Flame of Utumno]

On the topic of writing Bibles, I just noticed that J.R.R. Tolkien is listed as a 'principal collaborator' in translation and literary revision of the 'Jerusalem Bible'. This is a Roman Catholic edition of the Bible that was translated from the original Hebrew and Greek and first published in 1966. The one I have is 'The New Jerusalem Bible' published by Dartman, Longman and Todd, a London based publisher. (His name appears at the back just after the 'Index of Persons' on page 2108 and before the maps of the Holy Land.)

It's good to keep in mind where Tolkien's convictions lay, and he was certainly a devout Christian regardless of his motives in his fantasy / mythology.

[A Shireling]

Flame, Thanks for pointing that out about Tolkien! Interesting!! :)

[BlackCaptain]

But alot of people would sacrafice themselves for all of human kind. That is if it was only that one person. I know i would. Its called caring for things besided yourself, and any good-hearted hobbit exibits it.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by MorgulKing
But alot of people would sacrafice themselves for all of human kind. That is if it was only that one person. I know i would. Its called caring for things besided yourself, and any good-hearted hobbit exibits it.
Yes, there are many good people who would out of the kindness of their hearts, sacrifice themselves.

However, there are also many people who have the motto, "You first, after me!" In the fire on the American cruise ship Morro Castle which took place, I believe in the 1930s, there were more crew in the lifeboats than passengers - and that was during a period in history where the cry was always, "women and children first!" Not everyone is willing to lay down his or her life for another. Furthermore, there are a whole lot of people who love "mankind" as a sociological group, but not individual human beings which is where "the rubber meets the road" in the matter of personal sacrifice - I'm sure you know the type I mean!

The hobbits are on the whole good people, but not all as can be seen more clearly in the book - where there was time to "round out" the race - then in the film. But do not be deceived, there are less than loveable hobbits too (Lotho Sackville-Baggins, Ted Sandyman et al.) so by no means are hobbits "perfect"!

[A Shireling]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Furthermore, there are a whole lot of people who love "mankind" as a sociological group, but not individual human beings which is where "the rubber meets the road" in the matter of personal sacrifice - I'm sure you know the type I mean!

This is so true, Mrs. Maggot. Pardon my Bible-thumping, but I'm going to quote Paul (the apostle) at this point: "Perhaps for a good man, someone would dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while WE were yet SINNERS, Christ died for us." I know of no one who would do what Christ did; not even in a book of fantasy!

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by A Shireling
This is so true, Mrs. Maggot. Pardon my Bible-thumping, but I'm going to quote Paul (the apostle) at this point: "Perhaps for a good man, someone would dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while WE were yet SINNERS, Christ died for us." I know of no one who would do what Christ did; not even in a book of fantasy!
Which is, in effect, why Tolkien will not let - or CANNOT let - Frodo destroy the Ring! If Frodo were to have the strength of character necessary to destroy the Ring of evil in its place of greatest strength, that would make him stronger than Sauron or even Gandalf! In the end, in order to preserve Frodo's "humanity", he had to be overcome by the power of the Ring - as anyone (except, possibly, Gandalf the White) would have been. So the Ring could only be destroyed by "Divine accident" since no one there was "godlike" enough to be able to do it as a matter of will. Had Frodo gone that one step further and been able to subdue the Ring to his will and destroy it, he would have passed from "Christ-like" to Christ Himself, which, of course, the author could not permit.

[A Shireling]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
(snip) So the Ring could only be destroyed by "Divine accident" since no one there was "godlike" enough to be able to do it as a matter of will. Had Frodo gone that one step further and been able to subdue the Ring to his will and destroy it, he would have passed from "Christ-like" to Christ Himself, which, of course, the author could not permit.

Interesting. All I had noticed before is that any imagined analogy between Frodo and Jesus broke down at the end, because 1) Frodo didn't die, and 2) Frodo succeeded in his mission, in a sense, by accident.

Fulfilling the mission of destroying the ring was really out of Frodo's hands at the end (no pun intended), as you said. I just wonder about Tolkien's motives. I doubt that an author (especially a university Professor) would just arbitrarily decide on an ending. Too bad he never wrote a commentary on his own stories. Is it possible that Tolkien didn't let Frodo succeed on his own because he didn't want his readers to associate Frodo with Christ, thus making it into an allegory (allegories being what Tolkien said he disliked)?

[klugiglugus]

There is no God because there is no divine protection if there was then there would not be any thing like child prostitution in this world.

Taking that notion into account whats soo far fetched about one fanciful story being related to another?:)

I always thought Gandalf was alot like Jesus but then I thought Gandalf is probebly alot better.;)

Lord of the rings is alot like many other fantasy tales yet it is the Ubermensch of the lot because it is well written and a damn more detailed!

Regarding God to back up my theory I would like to point out the seas of time! Time is looped it has no begining and no end so how could this annal of the universe simply have a begining like many other objects in the eternal universe!

God and religion alike have nothing to do with the modern sagas of lord of the rings because it is realy just mans own congress with his super ego! Thus total tripe!:p

Have a nice day.:)

[A Shireling]

Originally posted by klugiglugus
There is no God because there is no divine protection if there was then there would not be any thing like child prostitution in this world.
(snip)
I always thought Gandalf was alot like Jesus but then I thought Gandalf is probebly alot better.;)
(snip)

The presence of evil in the world has nothing to do with the supposed "absence" of God, but with the presence of free will He gave to His creation. Evil WILL be dealt with.

[klugiglugus]

No, no! God is the divinity in man that is all! Well god in his purest form!

To an effect you are god! or an advocate for him because at one time in your life you have brought joy to others and have been a good human being!

Humanity does not need god when it has the protection of its self! God has never done any thing to the unkeen eye becasue in truth he lives in the heart of every creation!

Evil cannot be destroyed because we live on evil, evil is nature because nature is tooth and claw, evil is money and evil is the predudice wich we use to protect our selves!

Man has searched for god in evil because he only does so in fear!

Exept god or exept humanity either way you act in divine glory:)

[wee kev]

he would have passed from "Christ-like" to Christ Himself, which, of course, the author could not permit.

But did Tolkien not say that his work was not allegorical? Therefore to permit Frodo to Christ-like or not does not arise. No allegory - no Christ reference!

[wee kev]

There is no God


Regarding God to back up my theory


Hmmm. Hedging your bets a bit, huh?

[wee kev]

The first two line were supposed to be quotes from an earlier post! :mad:

Computers!!!!!!!!

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by wee kev
But did Tolkien not say that his work was not allegorical? Therefore to permit Frodo to Christ-like or not does not arise. No allegory - no Christ reference!

No, no! He said it was not "an allegory". There's a difference between something in a story being "allegorical" - that is, having connections and/or references to something else - and a story being an allegory.

An allegory is a story in which the author wants the reader to make a direct connection between the characters and plot theme and something usually historically real. Thus, the book Animal Farm is in fact, an allegorical representation of the rise of Communism. The author wrote it to be that. However, in just about every story, there are allegorical references to some other plot or person (there are only, I believe, some 38 different plot themes available, so virtually every story is going to use some part of one or more of them in its plot).

In Tolkien, there are Christological allegories in many of the characters including Frodo (the one who bears the burden of all sin), Sam (the meek servant), Aragorn (the hidden King), Gandalf (resurrection) and so forth. That doesn't mean, however, that Tolkien wrote about each one as Christ. But in the case of Frodo and the Ring, to allow him to destroy it by act of will would indeed have moved him beyond his mortal, fallible, "human" status and imbued him with powers he simply could not possess. Hence, the "divine accident" which used, of all people in the story, Gollum - someone who pursued the hobbits for so long with murder in his heart. It was an extremely apt and ironic conclusion to the story, proving once again that "evil will evil mar".

[wee kev]

However, in just about every story, there are allegorical references to some other plot or person (there are only, I believe, some 38 different plot themes available,

So if you want to find God in LOTR you can do. Does this also apply to The Simpsons? (I'm a fan of Homer S., by the way!)

[Cobain]

I always thought that the ring symbolises technology and the machine as many friends of Tolkien have said. I always thought that the ring was the machine as it's very easy to become addicted to it and very hard to live without it once you've had it.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by wee kev
So if you want to find God in LOTR you can do. Does this also apply to The Simpsons? (I'm a fan of Homer S., by the way!)
If "The Simpsons" were written with depth and intelligence instead of just cynicism, one might well find some references to other, deeper concepts and ideas.

However, that program hardly needs any "allegorical references" as it is a plain ordinary "humorous"(?) look at many social issues of the day whereas allegory is just a tad more subtle. It's the difference between say, a butterfly and a buffalo (The Simpsons being the latter of the two!).

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Cobain
I always thought that the ring symbolises technology and the machine as many friends of Tolkien have said. I always thought that the ring was the machine as it's very easy to become addicted to it and very hard to live without it once you've had it.
Tolkien's Ring is not allegorical of industrialization or machines simply because these things are themselves morally neutral. Even the "evil" gun needs to be used before it can do anything evil - and even then, it might be used to do good, which Tolkien's Ring could not be prevailed upon to do.

Now, you could make a connection between technology (although Tolkien would not have recognized the word) coupled with the human will - to Sauron's Ring and its Master. Even in Tolkien's day, man's "inventiveness" was producing "weapons of mass destruction" unknown in history. And, of course, when you have such weapons - and the will to use them - you have something fairly akin to Sauron and his Ring.

But still, we have the author's word that the work was a mythic story and not intended to be directly or even indirectly related to the world as it existed at the time. Nevertheless, one may certainly find instances of Tolkien's life experiences in LOTR. His Shire is certainly England's unspoilt countryside while his Mordor is very much like the Manchesters, Birminghams and other industrialized cities of that nation. But life experiences do not an allegory make, they simply offer a little more insight into the work because we are able to better know its creator.

[klugiglugus]

Far too much has been written about this and its getting boring now.:(

Tolkien would never have put any ting as blasfemus into his work and it would be quite blasfemus to call one of your characters Jesus because despite the obvious non-existance of god Tolkien believed in Jesus and the holy ghost and all that non-sense. Maybe it made him a better wrighter to be religious?:)

Yet again if you where a Jesus lover then you would be able to find god in everything so this thread will go round in infinate loops spanning into new leagues of religious annals but it makes people happy so whats the harm?:)

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by klugiglugus
Far too much has been written about this and its getting boring now.:(

Tolkien would never have put any ting as blasfemus into his work and it would be quite blasfemus to call one of your characters Jesus because despite the obvious non-existance of god Tolkien believed in Jesus and the holy ghost and all that non-sense. Maybe it made him a better wrighter to be religious?:)

Yet again if you where a Jesus lover then you would be able to find god in everything so this thread will go round in infinate loops spanning into new leagues of religious annals but it makes people happy so whats the harm?:)

Forgive me, but why do you post on a thread that is speaking about finding God in Tolkien's work if you simply wish to state that there is no God and then make comments about those who find Him there? It would seem that the entire topic would be of no interest to you.

Furthermore, you talk about the "obvious non-existence of God". Obvious to whom? Certainly not most of those posting on this thread! Atheism is every bit as much a "faith" as is Theism since the atheist can no more prove that God does not exist than the Theist can prove the opposite. However, when people with the intellect of Albert Einstein make the statement that the complexities of the universe bespeak of a plan rather than just random happenings, and the English co-founder of DNA (himself an atheist) admits that DNA is "too complex" to have arisen "randomly", it would seem to me that perhaps one should rethink the conclusion that everything in the universe "just happened". For that is what people who disbelieve in a "Primary Cause" (God) have to believe. Either Something or Someone brought all into existence in a grand plan, or "it just happened" and I think we have enough scientific evidence (not "theology") that the latter is not so.

[Cobain]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Tolkien's Ring is not allegorical of industrialization or machines simply because these things are themselves morally neutral. Even the "evil" gun needs to be used before it can do anything evil - and even then, it might be used to do good, which Tolkien's Ring could not be prevailed upon to do.

Now, you could make a connection between technology (although Tolkien would not have recognized the word) coupled with the human will - to Sauron's Ring and its Master. Even in Tolkien's day, man's "inventiveness" was producing "weapons of mass destruction" unknown in history. And, of course, when you have such weapons - and the will to use them - you have something fairly akin to Sauron and his Ring.

But still, we have the author's word that the work was a mythic story and not intended to be directly or even indirectly related to the world as it existed at the time. Nevertheless, one may certainly find instances of Tolkien's life experiences in LOTR. His Shire is certainly England's unspoilt countryside while his Mordor is very much like the Manchesters, Birminghams and other industrialized cities of that nation. But life experiences do not an allegory make, they simply offer a little more insight into the work because we are able to better know its creator.

I heard Tolkien said this many times and he was even quoted of saying it on the 4 disc LOTR package that he said the "Most evil thing created is the internal combustion machine". That is why the elves are these peace loving creatures very akin to nature as they represent good.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Cobain
I heard Tolkien said this many times and he was even quoted of saying it on the 4 disc LOTR package that he said the "Most evil thing created is the internal combustion machine". That is why the elves are these peace loving creatures very akin to nature as they represent good.

Certainly, for a man who loved peace and quiet as did Tolkien, the automobile was a very great trial. However, I do not believe he meant "evil" in the moral sense, but rather in the sense of something that lowered the quality of life of those forced to coexist with it. Cars, like guns, trains and other "machines" have no moral content; it is how they are used that define their eventual place in life. I am sure that Tolkien would not have considered "evil" the ambulance (using an internal combustian engine) whose speed saved the life of an injured person.

To my mind, it is probable that he made his comment on a day when the traffic noises in Oxford were particularly annoying!

[Captain Campion]

Well, I'm the first to admit I haven't had a chance to read everything, but way back in December 2001, Tar Palantir sort of put the last nail in the coffin. LotR is a Catholic story -- this from the pen of the author himself. There is a difference between something being allegory and something having for its theme, basic tenets of Catholicism. Note that I specifically say Catholic, because that's what Tolkien was. I don't say "Christianity", because Christianity has many faces today, not all of which would agree with Tolkien's view of salvation and the will of man.

The Catholicism of Tolkien's time is all over LotR. This is before a liberal mindset ran amok with the "spirit of Vatican II", interpreting Church teaching to suit its own ends, contrary to the true intent of the council.

It's easy to say there's no hint of Catholicism in LotR . . . until you research Catholicism down through the ages -- and especially as it existed during Tolkien's lifetime.

Does that mean Tolkien did not employ ideas from various mythologies? No, for certainly he did. But if a reader doesn't take the author himself at his word . . . I don't understand that. If Tolkien said, "I'm a pagan tree worshipper, and this story is a pagan tree worshipper story," all the tree worshippers would claim, "The author himself said so!" Well, Tolkien has said just the same thing about it being a Catholic story. I shall not be the one to call him a liar.

If a reader finds Catholic themes offensive, so be it. But they can not be removed from the book. The reader can only chose to ignore or overlook them. Or reinterpret them to fit their own viewpoint.

I am like Tolkien -- a devout, orthodox, and obedient Catholic. While I may not be able to see those things in his work with which I am not familiar, the presence of Catholic themes is one thing with which I am very familiar. So, to paraphrase a biblical passage, "If you have knowledge, speak. If not, say nothing at all." If there are other things that folks see in his work that are contrary to Catholic themes and doctrine, I am ready to "listen". On the non-Catholic topics, I must remain silent, for that is really out of my realm of knowledge.

I would ask that a certain amount of decorum and respect be shown. No attacks are necessary.

Peace.

Campion

[Glamdring]

Accually, TLOTR was written with an evolutionary theme. Tolkien secretly believed in evolution, but just said he was Catholic because is was more accepted at that time. Tolkien put many evolutionary themes into TLOTR. For example, the evolution of the different races like hobbits, different types of orcs, and the changing stature of men over thousands of years. Oh, and the ents that became more tree-like.

This post is obviously not serious, but it just shows that TLOTR has different themes from every point of view. The basic theme of TLOTR, that everyone can agree with, is GOOD VS. EVIL.
CATHOLICS DID NOT INVENT GOOD VS EVIL. The way you people are putting it, everything in exsistence has a catholic theme. But in reality, we all know that is not true.

Why can't we just say that every reader sees TLOTR in a different way. That's basically what Tolkien himself about underlying themes.

[Captain Campion]

Glamdring,

I would never deny that people see many different things in LotR. People read things through the lense of their experience. No argument there. I was pointing out, however, the view from which Tolkien himself was writing. Whatever we may see in the stories, it is not fair to the author to deny what he himself says is in the stories. That is the main point I wish to make.

No, of course Catholics did not invent good versus evil. That is not the "Catholic theme" of LotR. The Catholic theme is a being's struggle at overcoming its tendency and temptation toward evil. That is not the only theme in the story, but viewing the story from a Catholic standpoint, it is probably the one that stands out the most.

If you recognize Catholic theology, you know that a man who lives his entire life in sin and dissipation can still gain salvation if he fully and sincerely repents at the last moment of his life. This is Frodo's hope for Gollum (and for himself, as he sees himself becoming more like Gollum). That is Catholic theology. Some Protestant denominations share this belief.

Catholics also believe in salvation by faith and works (whereas many other Christians believe in salvation by faith alone). Hence, Gandalf telling Frodo that it is what we do with our time here on the planet that matters is also reflective of his Catholic upbringing.

The themes of industrialization and destruction of the countryside, man's responsible (or irresponsible) stewardship of the planet are certainly present in the book.

So, yes, I can agree with you that people see many different themes. But I can not deny that Tolkien wrote from a Catholic perspective.

Peace.

Captain Campion

[Valdarmyr]

Originally posted by Cobain
I heard Tolkien said this many times and he was even quoted of saying it on the 4 disc LOTR package that he said the "Most evil thing created is the internal combustion machine". That is why the elves are these peace loving creatures very akin to nature as they represent good.

Well, all I have to say is, it's probably just as well that Tolkien and the elves never knew about leaf blowers--the elves moreso, I guess.

As far as deciding what religion compares most to the themes of LOTR, when I read the books and watch the movies, religion doesn't even come to mind, and I'm a very spiritual person. Yes, there's good versus evil etc., but it's all pretty clear cut what the characters have to do, though they, as I, sometimes take a winding road to reach their objectives. "Common sense" seems to be what's needed most, not a booming voice from the sky, though I'm obviously dramatizing.

Religion has helped me find the way, and in the end, I must live above and beyond the beliefs I have, for as it was said, new wine can never be put into old bottles, or they'll burst. Maybe this means I'm on the "evolutionary" tack, at least partly...Still, I enjoy the lively discussion!

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Glamdring
Accually, TLOTR was written with an evolutionary theme. Tolkien secretly believed in evolution, but just said he was Catholic because is was more accepted at that time. Tolkien put many evolutionary themes into TLOTR. For example, the evolution of the different races like hobbits, different types of orcs, and the changing stature of men over thousands of years. Oh, and the ents that became more tree-like.

This post is obviously not serious, but it just shows that TLOTR has different themes from every point of view. The basic theme of TLOTR, that everyone can agree with, is GOOD VS. EVIL.
CATHOLICS DID NOT INVENT GOOD VS EVIL. The way you people are putting it, everything in exsistence has a catholic theme. But in reality, we all know that is not true.

Why can't we just say that every reader sees TLOTR in a different way. That's basically what Tolkien himself about underlying themes.
The two earliest Christian Churches, Orthodox in the East and Catholic in the West, do not have the same "literal" understanding of the Bible as do some Protestant Churches. That means that they have no problem with "evolution" insofar as the "seven days" of Creation are not literally seven twenty-four hour days. That means that there would be nothing against Tolkien's faith to posit the belief that things "evolve" on earth (not to mention the fact that hobbits have never actually existed, so their creation is mythic and not intended to be taken literally as well.

Darwinian evolution is incorrect; there are no "missing links" to be found which would show that one species "became" another. Most serious scientists - though they do believe in a passage of life from earlies to latest - have abandoned the Darwinian conception of that passage. But this is a much larger subject which doesn't belong on this thread or in this forum. This post is merely to say that you must not assume that every Christian group translates the Bible literally. It isn't so.

[Valdarmyr]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
[B]not to mention the fact that hobbits have never actually existed, so their creation is mythic and not intended to be taken literally as well.

Perhaps anthropologists or archaeologists simply haven't found
proof that Hobbits existed! :D If they were to look for their existence, it would seem to me the best places to look would be where food was easily obtained. :D

[Glamdring]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
(not to mention the fact that hobbits have never actually existed, so their creation is mythic and not intended to be taken literally as well.
Oh, and Ents, Elves, and Dwarves have accually exsisted. Wow this is new news to me. I wasn't under the impression that ANYTHING in the LOTR was meant to be taken literal. And please, do NOT start talking to me about evolution. I accually find it funny that someone who could accually believe in creationism, would start telling ME about evolution. I would like you to go on about this subject, strictly for humor's sake, but like you said, this thread is not for evolutionary discussion.

So basically I am giving up on this thread, since i see no end and is really quite pointless, but I do have one more question. I just don't understand the whole thing where you can only believe some of the stuff in the bible. I mean who decides what to believe, and what is there just for an uplifting story? It seems to me, whenever we scientifically prove that these things could not have happened, then these religions just say, "oh, well Uh.......Well that was never meant to be taken so literal." And then there are those who are so ignorant to say "science is wrong, but this book is true because it says it is." But up until that point, people were believing every single word from the bible.

[Mrs. Maggott]

See above: what was all that about?

One does not have to be a strict "creationist" not to be a Darwinian evolutionist. Most of those who push for Darwin's point of view do so not to prove evolution, but to "disprove" God - which, of course, they cannot do!

Again, as I asked another poster, I must ask Glamdring why anyone who doesn't "believe" in anything or someone who "knows" there is no God wishes to post on a thread that asks about finding "God" in LOTR?

Hobbits were used to exemplify those beings in LOTR which were Tolkien's invention; elves, ents, trolls, orcs, Valar etc. belong in that same category. This was in response to someone who was trying to imagine what hobbits "evolved" into - but since they never were, they could hardly "evolve" into anything!

P.S. We all believe in something, even if that something is "nothing". As it is no more possible to prove "nothing" than it is something, therefore belief is "nothing" is still belief.

[A Shireling]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott

We all believe in something, even if that something is "nothing". As it is no more possible to prove "nothing" than it is something, therefore belief in "nothing" is still belief.

This is so true! But this: "Beliefs allow the mind to stop functioning.
A non-functioning mind is clinically dead. BELIEVE IN NOTHING" (not posted by Mrs. Maggot, but by someone else) is absurd. Are you saying that someone who possesses faith is not a thinking person? If that is true, then NO ONE's mind functions, for as Mrs. Maggot so eloquently said, we ALL believe in something, even if that something is "nothing." The atheist possesses as much faith as the Christian; but the objects of their faiths are different.

[A Shireling]

Originally posted by Glamdring

So basically I am giving up on this thread, since i see no end and is really quite pointless, but I do have one more question. I just don't understand the whole thing where you can only believe some of the stuff in the bible. I mean who decides what to believe, and what is there just for an uplifting story? It seems to me, whenever we scientifically prove that these things could not have happened, then these religions just say, "oh, well Uh.......Well that was never meant to be taken so literal." And then there are those who are so ignorant to say "science is wrong, but this book is true because it says it is." But up until that point, people were believing every single word from the bible.

Has science proven the Bible to be wrong? :confused:

Glamdring, I hope you don't give up on this thread; but mostly, I hope you don't give up on searching for truth. There IS such a thing as Truth, you know. Not everything is relative; there ARE some absolutes left in this world. God is one. His son, Jesus Christ is another. So is evil, and so is good... but it's the evil that keeps us from loving God. If you don't believe anything else in the Bible, believe this: Christ died on my behalf and on your behalf--- why? To mend the relationship between us and God. And believe this: If you accept and thank Christ for what He did, you will become one of God's restored children, and you will have a certain future, because there's a lot more to come, even after your "earthsuit" takes its last breath. And yes, I KNOW these things are true because the Bible tells me about them over and over again. :cool:

[Valdarmyr]

Originally posted by A Shireling
But this: "Beliefs allow the mind to stop functioning.
A non-functioning mind is clinically dead. BELIEVE IN NOTHING" (not posted by Mrs. Maggot, but by someone else) is absurd. Are you saying that someone who possesses faith is not a thinking person? If that is true, then NO ONE's mind functions, for as Mrs. Maggot so eloquently said, we ALL believe in something, even if that something is "nothing." The atheist possesses as much faith as the Christian; but the objects of their faiths are different.

The dictionary defines a belief as "a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing." Also, "conviction of the truth." I "believe" that beliefs, including those of God, can be very useful. But in the end, what is a belief? To my way of thinking, it is a mental structure composed of energy, God's energy. And there is something greater than structure or form, and that might be defined as presence, and knowing of what "is." We may not see God as a Being in his/her fullness, but we may know he/she is present. I venture to say that God was before the Universe was created.

There is a state of living that is beyond believing and beliefs, and that is a state of living from the knowledge that God "is," and that I am a part of God (a very minute part to be sure, but a part nonetheless, with all the privileges and responsibilities that entails each of us) Just so, my expression does not always need to first crystalize into a belief before it comes out in the world, but may flow freely "in the now," an instantaneous spiritual expression.

[Valdarmyr]

By the way, I should've added to my above post that my experience has been that as a person lives less from belief and more from the experience or knowing of the things of God, one doesn't cease thinking! On the contrary, the energy that went into crystalizing beliefs is freed up for more instantaneous thought--right thinking; the thought process may actually become more active; and there's more room for a person's individuality to be expressed.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Beragorn
The dictionary defines a belief as "a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing." Also, "conviction of the truth." I "believe" that beliefs, including those of God, can be very useful. But in the end, what is a belief? To my way of thinking, it is a mental structure composed of energy, God's energy. And there is something greater than structure or form, and that might be defined as presence, and knowing of what "is." We may not see God as a Being in his/her fullness, but we may know he/she is present. I venture to say that God was before the Universe was created.

There is a state of living that is beyond believing and beliefs, and that is a state of living from the knowledge that God "is," and that I am a part of God (a very minute part to be sure, but a part nonetheless, with all the privileges and responsibilities that entails each of us) Just so, my expression does not always need to first crystalize into a belief before it comes out in the world, but may flow freely "in the now," an instantaneous spiritual expression.
Belief is a confidence and conviction in something that cannot be "proven" in a material world. For instance, I don't have to "believe" that I will drown if somebody drops me off a boat in the middle of the ocean. The fact that I can't swim at all plus the fact that even if I could, I couldn't swim far enough to find dry land upon which to stand plus the fact that I cannot breathe under water is all quite viable and sustainable proof that I would in fact, under those circumstances, drown!

On the other hand, as there is no chemical, biological or other "scientific" proof in the existence of a Supreme Being as I have come to believe in Him, then I must perforce sustain that conclusion by virtue of faith or belief rather than seeking to find some more material proof by which to sustain my conclusion.

A contemporary of Isaac Newton (an English clergyman, no less) postulated the existence of black holes long before anyone even dreamed of such a thing. Once the scientific fact that the speed of light was finite had been produced together with Newton's theories on gravitation, the man opined that as such was the case, there might be bodies in the universe of such tremendous mass as to have a gravitational pull that would even prevent the emission of light therefrom - hence, a "black hole". It was not until the last 1/4 or the last century that scientists were actually able to provide "proof" of the existence of these incredible bodies, but before that, those who had made the conclusion of their existence had to go on "belief" or "faith". Did that make the object of their faith/belief false? No. It just meant that at the time, sufficient scientific facts and/or capabilties were not present to offer material proof. They were right but for a long period of time, they had nothing to go by but their "faith", the testimony of those who came before them who held the same belief and their knowledge of the world around them. Most of those who believe in God go by pretty much the same thing.

[Valdarmyr]

I agree, Mrs. M...faith and belief can move mountains--and move Frodo closer to Mount Doom--while a person's still developing confidence and conviction. At least in the movie FOTR (I'm playing catch-up with the books), it seems to me Frodo is a bit unsure whether he can bear the heavy burden of carrying the Ring. But by the time he, Sam and Gollum get to Minas Morgul, the book TTT says, "Despair had not left him..." but he felt that "what he had to do, he had to do, if he could, and that whether Faramir or Aragorn or Elrond or Galadriel or anyone else ever knew about it was beside the purpose."

It seems here that Frodo's faith, which perhaps had been like a small, flickering light, has been fanned and emboldened into conviction.

[LoreMaster]

I would like to respond to those who are still skeptical about Christian influence in LOTR. The following is quoted from the book Fantasy and Your Family:
It can be argued that The Lord of the Rings is a Christian classic, rather than a work derived from paganism. Literature scholars from diverse fields of specialty are in agreement on this issue. Patrick Grant, for instance, a specialist in Renaissance literature who teaches English at the University of Victoria, British Columbia, writes,
The Lord of the Rings embodies an "inherent morality," as Tolkien calls it, which derives largely from the traditions of Christian and epic poetry. . . . First, and most important, is the concept of Christian heroism, a spiritual quality which depends on obedience rather than prowess or personal power. Second, heroism is basic to the meaning of love. Third, charity, or love, is the foundation of faith and hope. And last, Providence directs the affairs of the world. . . . We find the morality of the story not in doctrinal formulations which are the staples of allegory, but in the traditional and implicit motifs of Christian herosim, obedience, charity, and providence. Just as, historically, the simmering stock in the cauldron of the story is substantially flavored by the Christian ingredient, so are the archetypes in The Lord of the Rings.
Joseph Pearce-author of Tolkien: Man and Myth-agrees with Grant. In an interview with the Zenit News Agency, Pearce commented,
The Lord of the Rings is a profoundly Christian myth. . . . The values that emerge in The Lord of the Rings are the values that emerge in the Gospels. In the characterization of the Hobbits, the most reluctant and the most unlikely of heroes, we see the exaltation of the humble. In the figure of Gandalf we see the archetype of an Old Testament patriarch, his staff apparently having the same power as that possessed by Moses. In his apparent "death" and "resurrection" we see him emerge as a Christ-like figure. His "resurrection" results in his transfiguration. . . . The character of Gollum is debased by his attachment to the Ring, the symbol of the sin of pride. . . . Ultimately, the bearing of the Ring by Frodo, and his heroic struggle to resist the temptation to succumb to its evil powers, is akin to the Carrying of the Cross, the supreme act of selflessness. Throughout the whole of The Lord of the Rings the forces of evil are seen as powerful but not all-powerful. There is always the sense that divine providence is on the side of the Fellowship and that, ultimately, it will prevail against all the odds. As Tolkien put it succinctly, "Above all shadows rides the Sun."
Surprisingly, despite such learned opinions, The Lord of the Rings continues to be interpreted by some individuals as a kind of promotional volume for occultism. This may be due in part to their unfamiliarity with the work. A more significant cause, however, may be contemporary society's obsession with occultism in general and the explosive growth of occult-based belief systems such as neo-paganism and Wicca. These issues will be the subject of Part Three.
(The entire quote ends here.)

I will also say again part of what I said when I first entered this discussion on page 24:

As has been said before, Tolkien was a Christian and his faith influenced his work. He may not have an intended an actual allegory, but I don't see how one can deny that he deliberately used Christian ideas if he himself was a Christian and his work exhibits many clues of Christian influence. It could hardly be coincidental. 6-9-02

[A Shireling]

I'm reading Tolkien, A Celebration. The first chapter is called "Recollections of J.R.R. Tolkien" written by George Sayer, a personal friend. He tells of a time in Tolkien's life when he was depressed over being unsuccessful in getting The Lord of the Rings published. Tolkien spent a few days in Sayer's home. Sayer writes:...What could we do to alleviate his depression? I could walk with him and drive him around during the day, buy how were we to get through the evenings? Then I had an idea. I would take the risk of introducing him to a new machine that I had in the house and was trying out because it seemed that it should have some valuable education applications. It was a large black box, a Ferrograph, an early-model tape recorder. To confront him with it was a risk because he had made it clear that he disliked all machinery. He might curse it and curse me with it, but there was a chance that he would be interested in recording on it, in hearing his own voice. He was certainly interested. First he recorded the Lord's Prayer in Gothic to cast out the devil that was sure to be in it since it was a machine! This was not just whimsy. All of life for him was part of a cosmic conflict between the forces of good and evil, God and the devil..."

I found this very enlightening. (By the way, the recording made that evening of Tolkien reading poems and excerpts from LotR is available on audio tape. I have a copy.)

The rest of Sayer's recollections are really delightful. For instance, while staying in the Sayers' home, he wrote Mrs. Sayer a Thank-You note for the meals she cooked. The Thank-You note was written in Elvish, complete with English translation! How cool is THAT?

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by A Shireling
I'm reading Tolkien, A Celebration. The first chapter is called "Recollections of J.R.R. Tolkien" written by George Sayer, a personal friend. He tells of a time in Tolkien's life when he was depressed over being unsuccessful in getting The Lord of the Rings published. Tolkien spent a few days in Sayer's home. Sayer writes:

I found this very enlightening. (By the way, the recording made that evening of Tolkien reading poems and excerpts from LotR is available on audio tape. I have a copy.)

The rest of Sayer's recollections are really delightful. For instance, while staying in the Sayers' home, he wrote Mrs. Sayer a Thank-You note for the meals she cooked. The Thank-You note was written in Elvish, complete with English translation! How cool is THAT?

If your quote about Tolkien actually believing that one had to "cast the devil" out of a piece of machinery simply because it was a machine is, in fact, correct, then the author's Catholicism had a bit more "Tradition" in it than goes with that demonination or, in fact, with Christianity itself. I can recall nothing in the early Church (albeit wherein "machines" were virtually unknown) or even later in the Eastern canons at least (although there may be something in the canons of the Western [Catholic] Church) where performing an exorcism over a piece of machinery was called for.

If Tolkien actually believed that such things were "the work of the devil" (as some Protestants believe about playing cards), then his involvement with pagan myths influenced more than his work! Either that or his thinking process was exceptionally "medieval" (a time at which such a thing would doubtless have occurred when confronted with something new and strange).

[wee kev]

At the risk of sounding a bit 'thick', is it possible the Tolkien wrote LOTR just as a 'good yarn'? Perhaps he wanted it to be read and enjoyed as just a 'good yarn' with no technological or religious references or hidden meanings!

[Valdarmyr]

Originally posted by wee kev
At the risk of sounding a bit 'thick', is it possible the Tolkien wrote LOTR just as a 'good yarn'? Perhaps he wanted it to be read and enjoyed as just a 'good yarn' with no technological or religious references or hidden meanings!

It is possible, wee kev. I'm finding out through the posts of our learned friends here in this forum that Tolken did not mean for LOTR to be his statement about the way things were in the U.S. or the world, be it World War Two or whatever.

On one hand, I do see parts of the books that promote nature over industrialization. And it's hard for some of us to miss the similarities between some passages and religious or spiritual writings, beliefs and practice.

On the other hand--it sure is great entertainment! Best entertainment I've enjoyed for a long time! I also believe entertainment is good for the soul.

[LoreMaster]

I was just browsing around in the Silmarillion section of this forum and came across a discussion where the identities of the Secret Fire and the Flame of Anor were being debated. Someone wrote of an newspaper article in which it was mentioned that a friend of Tolkien asked him what the Secret Fire was, and in his reply Tolkien identified it as the Holy Spirit. This paper was described as being "very trustworthy." If this is indeed the case, then it would be an important piece of evidence for Christian influence in LOTR, as well as further evidence of Eru's identity as Jehovah.

[de_uda]

I think it is possible to believe both sides. I think Tolkein wrote LOTR to express his feelings and views on his collective life which includes his religeon. Isn't that what all writers are doing, expressing their feelings and beliefs?
I believe in God, but i think that Tolkien wrote the books as an expression of his God-given gift of writing.

[LoreMaster]

I don't deny that Tolkien may have expressed personal views on other topics as well, such as industrialization. I and some others here are focusing on how Christianity influenced Tolkien's work.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by LoreMaster
I don't deny that Tolkien may have expressed personal views on other topics as well, such as industrialization. I and some others here are focusing on how Christianity influenced Tolkien's work.

Yes, that is true. However, if Tolkien actually believed that "machines" were an "evil" thing, then this too has had an influence on his writing since the word evil has moral parameters. If I say that something is bad, it may not have moral implications. A firearm may be "bad" (or good), but it is inherently morally neutral. Only in the hands of someone who is using it does it take on moral implications. If something is actually "evil" in and of itself, that implies that the thing bears moral implications and is therefore, not"neutral". If Tolkien believed machines were evil (and apparently he recited a prayer of exorcism into a hand-held tape recorder which indicates that he did perceive demonic influence connected with the instrument), then this must definitely affect his writing.

Remember, if we can find God in Tolkien's works, we should be able to find the devil as well.

[omnipotent_elf]

i find it very annyoing how everybody has to find religion and god in everything
why is everything religious based
tolkien writing could have nothing to do with god
it's like saying everything people think is racist because there eyes see a different colour
if i wrote a book, i would not put any religion in it at all, but unfortunately i guess lots of people just want religious links that badly...
i am not just saying that religion is bad, just that u i dont think that everything is religious

thats my opinion anyways

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Omnipotent_elf
i find it very annyoing how everybody has to find religion and god in everything
why is everything religious based
tolkien writing could have nothing to do with god
it's like saying everything people think is racist because there eyes see a different colour
if i wrote a book, i would not put any religion in it at all, but unfortunately i guess lots of people just want religious links that badly...
i am not just saying that religion is bad, just that u i dont think that everything is religious

thats my opinion anyways
I think the question is asked of LOTR because it is part of a larger "creation myth" which begins in the Silmarillion. Naturally, any "creation myth" is going to contain allusions to God; it's a given.

LOTR is also a great morality tale dealing with a plentitude of virtues (and vices). All such tales carry within them references to the author's belief system and, as a result, there will be allusions to God, albeit indirectly as in LOTR.

Yes, there are stories which do not allude to God. But if a tale has a greater meaning above and beyond simply what transpires within it, then there is more than likely going to be some reference to the author's belief system, whatever that may be.

P.S. Liked your little "get up and go" sentiment. My mother had another such saying: "By the time I get it all together, I will have forgotten where I put it!"

[de_uda]

Also more contrasts can be drawn because both LOTR and God are on such a large scale. You can also see signs that point towards religeon in some books. This can include good/evil struggle and a large force of good (the elves) and a large force of evil (sauron).

[lightingstrike]

Yeah, I have heard about that Tolkien was the one that brought C.S. Lewis into Christianity too. C.S. has a lot God-like characters in his books such as Aslan. And portraying the white which as Satan.

[LoreMaster]

Mrs. Maggot, I can't say I entirely understand what you said immediately following my post. I don't deny that evil can be found in Tolkien's mythology. In fact, I think Melkor is to be identified with Satan just as I think Eru is to be identified with Jehovah. Could you please explain what you specifically thought was wrong with what I said, if you were disagreeing with me?

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by LoreMaster
Mrs. Maggot, I can't say I entirely understand what you said immediately following my post. I don't deny that evil can be found in Tolkien's mythology. In fact, I think Melkor is to be identified with Satan just as I think Eru is to be identified with Jehovah. Could you please explain what you specifically thought was wrong with what I said, if you were disagreeing with me?

I'm sorry for being obtuse. I wasn't disagreeing with you so much as I was addressing a question that I thought you might be asking (since others on the thread have also asked it) and that is why it was considered a sort of "given" that "God" would be found in LOTR. I simply pointed out that the story was a continuation of Tolkien's original creation myth and therefore it would continue to contain within it the elements found in the earlier story, and since it was a "creation" myth, said elements naturally included the Creator (or God).

I may have misunderstood your post and my reply was probably off point. If so, I am sorry. :(

[klugiglugus]

So we asume that there is a god?

Why do people insist on this little man in the sky waving a wand around to make the sun shine?

What if there is like universal worm hole rifts that effect some kind of temperal engergy? that is looped or manipulated on a large scale? A constant cycle cipher of time or life?

Or what if the key to life is sound waves? Or basic motion waves? Or simple infinate cell mitocis?

Brake free from the chains of this animalistic divinity non sense! Lord of the rings was not make to reinforce the fear of God, the devil and the Holy ghost but bring joy to people!

Stop bible bashing!

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by klugiglugus
So we asume that there is a god?

Why do people insist on this little man in the sky waving a wand around to make the sun shine?

What if there is like universal worm hole rifts that effect some kind of temperal engergy? that is looped or manipulated on a large scale? A constant cycle cipher of time or life?

Or what if the key to life is sound waves? Or basic motion waves? Or simple infinate cell mitocis?

Brake free from the chains of this animalistic divinity non sense! Lord of the rings was not make to reinforce the fear of God, the devil and the Holy ghost but bring joy to people!

Stop bible bashing!

Many of the most brilliant people who have ever walked the earth (including scientists of great note) have believed in a "Primary Cause" (God). But the question on this thread has not been "is there a God", but rather, "finding God in LOTR" which, as you must admit, is a much different question. Since the author of that work firmly believed in God, it would be expected that you would find Him there (as the author himself has indicated).

However, getting back to your original point, God is one of those concepts whom for those who do not believe, no proof is possible and - for those who do, none is necessary. ;)

[Captain Campion]

Originally posted by klugiglugus
So we asume that there is a god?

Why do people insist on this little man in the sky waving a wand around to make the sun shine?

Brake free from the chains of this animalistic divinity non sense! Lord of the rings was not make to reinforce the fear of God, the devil and the Holy ghost but bring joy to people!



Then you write, "Hail Morgoth, overlord of the damned." If there is no god, who is doing the "damning" of those over whom Morgoth is lord?

You should at least be consistent.

Campion

[omnipotent_elf]

tolkien also would have believed there is a god, because he was christian!

[klugiglugus]

But the question on this thread has not been "is there a God", but rather, "finding God in LOTR" which, as you must admit, is a much different question.

How can you find god in somthing if he does not exist at all?

Ok fair enough I will adress the origonal question. In which exact paragraph on which page is there an annal of a chirstian god? Tolkein may hav thought their was a god but that does not realy mean that he could not have neglected to mention there is one!

Then you write, "Hail Morgoth, overlord of the damned." If there is no god, who is doing the "damning" of those over whom Morgoth is lord?

I can write hail Morgoth lord of the damned but that does not mean to say that I think Morgoth ever existed although there are nice recordings and accounts of him!

There is no god, there is no heaven, there is no hell and all things are possible!

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by klugiglugus
How can you find god in somthing if he does not exist at all?

Ok fair enough I will adress the origonal question. In which exact paragraph on which page is there an annal of a chirstian god? Tolkein may hav thought their was a god but that does not realy mean that he could not have neglected to mention there is one!

There is no god, there is no heaven, there is no hell and all things are possible!

To begin with, Tolkien himself (the author) said that the story was a "Catholic" one; that is, his creation myth - of which LOTR is a part - conforms to the Roman Catholic Church's theology regarding creation, albeit not in the same terms. Now, the last time I looked, the Roman Catholic Church falls under the umbrella of those institutions considered to be "Christian". That being the case, you can pretty much bet the ice cream store that "God" as understood in the Christian faith will be found directly or indirectly in the story. Indirectly simply means that the moral doctrines of Christianity will be presented within the tale: good vs. evil and all that that implies.

I suppose you could write LOTR without those moral virtues and their opposite vices being present, but then it would be a totally different story without heroes or villains. It would all be just a matter of one side against the other (as in a game of chess) without any particular side being "right" or "wrong" since there would be no moral structure by which to make that kind of judgment, nor would that kind of judgment be permitted since the concepts of "right" and "wrong" are themselves "faith based" as it were.

You see, the problem with the concept of "no God, no heaven, no hell" is not that a person who holds that opinion believes in nothing, but rather, that he or she will believe in anything! Thus, people who had that same moral philosophy were able to put to death those whom they considered unworthy to live simply because they had the power to do so! Once you remove the boundaries erected by the Judeo-Christian moral philosphy, then all things are indeed possible, but I guarantee that you wouldn't want 90% of them to occur! What you perceive as "freedom" is instead "slavery" to whomever has the biggest army and the most powerful weapons.

Look back on the last century and see what this kind of an amoral Utilitarian moral ethic has produced in Germany and Russia and Cambodia and Armenia and Ethiopia and China and all the other places where human beings have been slaughtered out of hand because those in power simply wanted to do so and were not "fettered" by that nasty God-thingy. Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it!

[klugiglugus]

Ok, right that makes sense.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by klugiglugus
Ok, right that makes sense.
I do not doubt that you are a young person - perhaps very young at least referable to my age which is not all that old since many people are living into their centeniary years. But I have experienced - and know others who have experienced things that happened before I was born or while I was too young to know of them - the horror and bestiality to which men may sink when the restraining hand of the moral ethic on which Western Civilization is based is removed.

Furthermore, this is not just a matter of "religion" but of a particular "religion". Communism and Nazism were also "religions". They worshipped "Man" in the guise of "The State". They had their rituals and their "saints". They, too, had their "moral vision": the ends justify the means being one tenet. Some of the terrible things going on in this world are being done in the name of another "religion" and I will pass no judgment upon it as I don't know if those doing such horrible things are perverting their faith for their own ends. Certainly in the past, such things were done by "Christians" as well.

But the simple fact is, man is a worshipping being! It is "hard-wired" into the species as has been discovered in some fairly recent genetic research. Mankind looks to something greater than himself. Sometimes he makes it himself, but whatever it is, he will worship and serve it simply because he cannot live without it. Better he should worship and serve God rather than a substitute which can lead to the terrible things noted in my earlier post.

[JMacEye]

Well, hhmmmm.

As an atheist for the last 36 years, I can, without qualification, attest that one does not need to worship a "God" to keep them from worshiping something else...

And because,IMO, religion is the justification and the cause of war, terrorism and suffering, not to mention self delusion, I question whether worshiping a "God" is a better alternative to nothing. Religion is not what keeps me a "moral" decent human being.

But that is only my opinion and the last thing I want to do is debate religion with anyone....talk about a waste of time....trying to convince someone their is no "God" is almost as bad as trying to convince the FADs that the films could have been better...but not quite :D

[LoreMaster]

I will now attempt to show that Eru, the God of Tolkien's world, is Jehovah, the God of the Bible. It can be seen that Tolkien's mythology is set in our world in the distant past. HerenIstarion posted this quote elsewhere in the forum: I am historically minded. Middle-earth is not an imaginary world. The name is the modern form (appearing in the 13th century and still in use) of midden-erd > middel-erd, an ancient name for the oikoumenç, the abiding place of Men, the objectively real world, in use specifically opposed to imaginary worlds (as Fairyland) or unseen worlds (as Heaven or Hell). The theatre of my tale is this earth, the one in which we now live, but the historical period is imaginary. The essentials of that abiding place are all there (at any rate for inhabitants of N.W. Europe), so naturally it feels familiar, even if a little glorified by the enchantment of distance in time. It can also be shown that Tolkien set his mythology in the context of biblical history. First, there is this letter quote Goroshimura posted on page 44 of this discussion:"The Fall of Man is in the past and off stage; the Redemption of Man is in the far future. We are in a time when the One God, Eru, is known to exist by the wise, but is not approachable save by or through the Valar, though He is still remembered in (unspoken) prayer by those of Numenorean descent." Second, there is a statement in the book J.R.R. Tolkien to the effect that Tolkien set his mythology in biblical space-time. I don't have the book now so I can't give an exact quote, but hopefully I'll be able to soon. Third, as I mentioned earlier, according to a "very trustworthy" newspaper, Tolkien stated to a friend the Secret Fire as the Holy Spirit. Together these statements point to the idea that The Lord of the Rings and other related books are set in biblical space-time. Tolkien identified Eru as God in the quote Goroshimura posted(the one I included here), and the God of biblical history is Jehovah.

[JMacEye]

I doubt it not that Tolkien's own religious beliefs were deeply seated and affected the vision of his creation mythology....

But, thank you. thank you, thank you Mr. Tolkien for not having even a single creature, person or being in Middle Earth WORSHIP anyone or anything....

[Samwise Gamgee]

I am a Christian and some of you are posting things by Tolkien himself (I think he DID write them) that are saying it isn't an allegory. That's because it's not. In fact Tolkien DISLIKED Narnia because it WAS an allagory (plus because Lewis did them so quickly and mixed a whole lot of mythologys together). However, it is more like a new creation. It was different, but there was a God - Illuvater, and his angels, the Ainur and Valar and others! He based it on some of the things of this world. It took a long time for the creation to take place instead of 6 days and one day to rest, and Ea is different than earth. ! He just made a new world. Yet there still is a God, a devil figure, and evil. He didn't mean for them to represent things, I think he said so himself, yet you can learn a lot of wisdom. The ring is educational in our spiritual walk. Tolkien used Chrisitan themes, but he didn't make a paralell world.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Samwise Gamgee
I am a Christian and some of you are posting things by Tolkien himself (I think he DID write them) that are saying it isn't an allegory. That's because it's not. In fact Tolkien DISLIKED Narnia because it WAS an allagory (plus because Lewis did them so quickly and mixed a whole lot of mythologys together). However, it is more like a new creation. It was different, but there was a God - Illuvater, and his angels, the Ainur and Valar and others! He based it on some of the things of this world. It took a long time for the creation to take place instead of 6 days and one day to rest, and Ea is different than earth. ! He just made a new world. Yet there still is a God, a devil figure, and evil. He didn't mean for them to represent things, I think he said so himself, yet you can learn a lot of wisdom. The ring is educational in our spiritual walk. Tolkien used Chrisitan themes, but he didn't make a paralell world.

Indeed not! I would say that the most clear indication of Tolkien's faith is the moral values and virtues that are elucidated in LOTR. It is in this particular part of the story that we see Tolkien's faith most clearly stated and not in any particular ritual or persons presented within the tale.

[LoreMaster]

If anyone thinks Tolkien was not referring to the Christian story of the Fall of Man in the quote I posted, the book
Fantasy and Your Family has a quote from
J.R.R. Tolkien: Author of the Century in which it is said:
This "fall of the angels" also leads in both mythologies to a second fall: the Fall of Man and the exile from the Garden of Eden in the Book of Genesis, the loss of elvish innocence and the emigration from Aman (which becomes an exile) in The Silmarillion. . . . [H]e also built in, or rather left a space for, the traditional story of the Fall of Man. . . . [W]hen the humans do enter Middle-earth from the east all that is known about them to the elves . . . is that something dreadful had happened to them already, a "darkness" which "lay upon the hearts of Men" and which was connected with an unknown expedition of Morgoth: one could believe that Morgoth here is identical with Satan, and his expedition was to lure humanity into their "original sin."
Worship is not in The Lord of the Rings, but the Numenoreans did have a holy mountain dedicated to God in Numenor. Tolkien wrote in a letter:The top of the Mountain, the Meneltarma or Pillar of Heaven, was dedicated to Eru, the One, and there at any time privately, and at certain times publicly, God was invoked, praised, and adored: an imitation of the Valar and the Mountain of Aman. But Numenor fell and was destroyed and the Mountain engulfed, and there was no substitute. There is another letter quote that shows why there is no worship in The Lord of the Rings: So ended Numenor- Atlantis and all its glory. But in a kind of Noachian situation the small party of the Faithful in Numenor, who had refused to take part in the rebellion (though many of them had been sacrificed in the Temple by the Sauronians) escaped in Nine Ships (Vol. I. 379, II. 202) under the leadership of Elendil and his sons Ilsidur and Anarion, and established a kind of diminished memory of Numenor in Exile on the coasts of Middle-earth - inheriting the hatred of Sauron, the friendship of the Elves, the knowledge of the True God, and (less happily) the yearning for longevity, and the habit of embalming and the building of splendid tombs -- their only 'hallows': or almost so. But the 'hallow' of God and the Mountain had perished, and there was no real substitute. Also when the 'Kings' came to an end there was no equivalent to a 'priesthood': the two being identical in Numenorian ideas. So while God (Eru) was a datum of good history, He had at the time of the War of the Ring no worship and no hallowed place. And that kind of negative truth was characteristic of the West, and all the area under Numenorean influence: the refusal to worship any 'creature', and above all no 'dark lord' or satanic demon, Sauron, or any other, was almost as far as they got. They had (I imagine) no petitionary prayers to God; but preserved the vestige of thanksgiving. (Those under special Elvish influence might call on the angelic powers for help in immediate peril or fear of evil enemies.) It later appears that the King, where he had anciently offered thanks and praise on behalf of his people; but it had been forgotten. It was re-entered by Aragorn, and there he found a sapling of the White Tree, and replanted it in the Court of the Fountain. It is to be presumed that with the reemergence of the lineal priest kings (of whom Luthien the Blessed Elf-maiden was a foremother) the worship of God would be renewed, and His Name (or title) be again more often heard. But there would be no temple of the True God while Numenorean influence lasted.

[JMacEye]

Quote from Loremaster

"Worship is not in The Lord of the Rings, but the Numenoreans did have a holy mountain dedicated to God in Numenor. Tolkien wrote in a letter:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The top of the Mountain, the Meneltarma or Pillar of Heaven, was dedicated to Eru, the One, and there at any time privately, and at certain times publicly, God was invoked, praised, and adored: an imitation of the Valar and the Mountain of Aman. But Numenor fell and was destroyed and the Mountain engulfed, and there was no substitute.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I never doubted at all that Tolkien was a Christian and his mythology would natural have parallels with it...but I say again, Thank you Mr. Tolkien for keeping WORSHIPING something out of LOTR...The Sil, yes and I am famliar with it, but LOTR, no...it would have ruined it for me.

[Tatem]

It is quite possible that God worked though Tolkien so that he would emit an anology of the Bible.

[Tatem]

Ah another thing, if that is true, then Gandalf is Jesus Christ ;)

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Tatem
It is quite possible that God worked though Tolkien so that he would emit an anology of the Bible.
Certainly God makes use of us in His own way if we try to do His will. Rather than another "Bible", however (since one has already been written), it is most likely that Tolkien was a vessel whereby great virtues were presented to an apathetic world in such a way as to be read and appreciated by people who otherwise would never have read such works as the Bible or other theological books, having no interest in them.

Tolkien's works are very much like Mary Poppin's old adage, "a spoon full of sugar helps the medicine go down!" Especially young people can read about the virtues of loyalty, courage, self-sacrifice, goodness and friendship - and enjoy it! That's how the best lessons are learned!

[Finrod]

Responding to walter:

If you belive that God is what you make him, he is no longer God. The supreme ruler of the universe cannot be defined by humanist thought! Men are fallen, how can we think that a fallen man can give a correct definition for God, the only sinless being?

You are using Eastern thought in your argument. In order to use the "both/and" philosophy you must use the "either/or" philosophy to decide to use the "both/and". this is where you contradict yourself.

I would love to chat with you on this subject

[Finrod]

replying to tatem:

No, gandalf does not have to be Christ. In the appendices, Tolkien says that the Istari(plural)were sent to carry out Eru's will on earth in the wake of sauron evil. There are not more than one
Christ. and, because Gandalf improved in skill after his balrog battle, how then could Jesus get better?(being God)

[Captain Campion]

Originally posted by Finrod
If you belive that God is what you make him, he is no longer God. The supreme ruler of the universe cannot be defined by humanist thought! Men are fallen, how can we think that a fallen man can give a correct definition for God, the only sinless being?


Great explanation, Finrod.

[Valdarmyr]

Originally posted by Finrod
Responding to walter:

If you belive that God is what you make him, he is no longer God. The supreme ruler of the universe cannot be defined by humanist thought! Men are fallen, how can we think that a fallen man can give a correct definition for God, the only sinless being?

You're right, we can make God be anything, and we can't know Him in His fullness--but we are made to know Him, to whatever degree we free up space in consciousness, to know Him through thought, feeling, spirit and living experience. Jesus said, "Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God." Also, "I and my Father are one." And in Genesis, "God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." Man has had diminished capacity since the Fall, but we are still inherently made in the image and likeness of God. This means we have some built-in understanding of who and what God is, though our consciousness may not be clear enough, or at a high enough frequency yet, to understand this consciously.

I couldn't find the original post Finrod was responding to, so it's possible my post doesn't relate entirely to the one he saw.

[Valdarmyr]

That should be, we can't make God be anything.

[Aldanil]

I still find myself a wee disturbed by the queasy implications of Tatem's original (or at least considerably precedent) phrase "emit an analogy of the Bible", given that verb's mechanistic overtones of industrial extrusion or radioactive transmission, and I generally find the exegetical effort to demonstrate the Christ-nature of Gandalf or some other such doctrinally illuminated meaning in the Tale of Arda to be working a few furlongs at least past the point; it's in his adult-life-long act of Sub-creation that John Ronald's Catholic faith most richly and directly expressed itself, and the master-mythographer who reimagined the World's being brought into Being as a mighty contrapuntal Music needs no hermeneutic help from evangelical scholastics or cymini sectores...



On the other hand -- might we analytically consider the Ainulindale to be an extended fantasia and fugue on the theme of God as Holy Scop in the stable-hand's dream-song called "Caedmon's Hymn"?

[Mrs. Maggott]

I think in our "concepts" of God, we have to take into account what St. Paul says about our limited ability to "see" as through a glass, darkly. Even when we are raised to actual sonship with God Himself, we will naturally be limited in our capacity to understand Him - which was certainly one of the reasons that He became "incarnate". We could not "go up" to Him, so He had to "come down" to us.

Nothing is separate from God. Even evil itself is nothing more than a rejection of Him. Outside of Him can nothing exist and without Him was nothing made. He did not "create" evil, but in giving free will to his sentient creatures (angels and men), He permitted it to come to pass. As I have said before, His choices were limited:

1] He could exist in the perfection of His Godhead alone (and that Godhead is perfect because it is not a "singularity" - one Person, but rather a "unity" - Three Persons.

2] He could create a universe with beings without free will who would ever be subject to His will and thus would He continue to exist in perfection; or

3] He could create a universe with beings endowed with free will whose obedience to and adoration of Him was a decision freely made or, in the alternative, not be made and thus would "sin" enter into creation.

Since God is Himself perfect, even He obeys those laws which He made. The result is that He has limited His own responses to our disobedience and thus our imperfect world is filled with those things to which people constantly respond, "how can a loving God permit this or that to happen....." He permits it because He has "permitted" us to exist.

All of this must be considered when we look at Tolkien's works since this was his understanding of God both his own and that of his creation.

[MrFrodo]

I want to get in on this.

Ah another thing, if that is true, then Gandalf is Jesus Christ

Well he is in a way. He cames back to life.

Matrix.....Neo comes back to life.

IF you are looking for god he will find you, his message will be relayed to you in any form. From film to book.

GOD BLESS

[Muffinly]

Is it ok if I bring the Silmarillion into this debate??

"..and he made first the Ainur, the Holy Ones, that were the offspring of his thought and they were with him before aught else was made. Sil. p3 hardcover

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning."
John 1:1


I just thought I woul;d mention that.

I think Tolkien did not write LOTR with the intention of writing an allegorical work. But the values, beliefs and parallels (like above) may have come from his Christian influence. The mind of a writer will come out in his works.

That's my two cents worth.

[Finrod]

Maggott:

If nothing is separate from God, then why do we need redemption?(as fallen men)

If nothing is separate from God, then Jesus died for nothing!

What about Satan? How can he be with God, if he is the father of sin, and sin cannot be tolerated by God!?

If we are present with God, then man never fell!

Surely you are not implying that the Earth is the same now as the garden of Eden was?!?

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Finrod
Maggott:

If nothing is separate from God, then why do we need redemption?(as fallen men)

If nothing is separate from God, then Jesus died for nothing!

What about Satan? How can he be with God, if he is the father of sin, and sin cannot be tolerated by God!?

If we are present with God, then man never fell!

Surely you are not implying that the Earth is the same now as the garden of Eden was?!?

Nothing exists external to God, meaning nothing came into being without Him
(see the beginning of the Gospel of John). However, once free will had entered into creation, then sentient beings - including men and angels - were free to separate themselves from God and, having done so, the only way back from that "separation", was for God Himself to "come down and rectify the matter in accordance with the laws that He had made - hence, the Cross.

Are you suggesting that the forces of evil came into being without God? If so, then your God can hardly be said to be eternal, omnipotent, omniescent or omnipresent since obviously somethine else exists out there which is able to "create" without His involvement. That is a heresy which (I believe) is called dualism.

[Muffinly]

I'm bringing back an old post but I want to make a point

Originally posted by Courtney
I was most certainly not insulting or putting down anyone else's religion, because I myself am a practicing Catholic. I believe very strongly in what the Bible says, but it is not meant to be taken as absolute truth. It is something to base our lives on.



Personally i belive the Bible too. I would never be consciously believe in something that is not fully the truth, let alone base my whole life on it. If it was made to base our lives on, it should be absolute truth.

Now LOTR is not an absolute truth, and it isn't made to be. It's more of an inventive story with concepts and pieces of truth put into a fiction story. Tolkien's dislike of allegory led him not to paraphrase the Bible. He may have however, put a few points of Christianity, from his Christian influences, into LOTR. Like I said earlier, the mind of a writer will come out in his works.

[Valdarmyr]

Originally posted by Walter
As always things are not so simple...

This exactly is a question which has puzzled (and still is) menkind (even christian theologists) for ages: Whether good is simply the absence of evil or whether good and evil are opposite forces, basically equally strong (c.f. Heraklit, Parmenides, Boethius, Manichaeus, etc.). And of course Tolkien uses elements of both standpoints in his epos.

Here are my beliefs...on one level of the good "versus" evil issue, I see good as being the state when a creative cycle is completed ("And God saw that it was good"), and evil as being the state that is in "evol," or is evolving, in flux and consequently not "good." These creative cycles, both large and small cycles, are continuing all the time. Even before Man fell from the true state, there had to have been this kind of good and evil in the creative processes. Man may have responded to what was "evil" or not fully revealed, not fully formed, in the cycle (something lower than him), and lost much of his/her connection with God. That's my take on one aspect...unfortunately, my work break is now over...to be continued...

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Walter
As always things are not so simple...

This exactly is a question which has puzzled (and still is) menkind (even christian theologists) for ages: Whether good is simply the absence of evil or whether good and evil are opposite forces, basically equally strong (c.f. Heraklit, Parmenides, Boethius, Manichaeus, etc.). And of course Tolkien uses elements of both standpoints in his epos.

The Church (and, again, I must say to you that as a member of the Eastern Church - Orthodox - our theology has not changed since the first seven Ecumenical Councils) teaches that evil is in fact not simply the "absence of good". After His baptism, Christ is led by the Spirit into the desert for forty days during which time He is tempted by Satan. You cannot be tempted by "an absence", only by a "presence". Now, can the "absence" of good bring about, encourage or make possible evil? Certainly. Edmond Burke the great English philospher once said something to the effect that evil triumphs when good men do nothing.

Secondly, good and evil are not "equal". The opposite of Satan is not God but the leader of His Heavenly Host, St. Michael. If God is truly omnipotent and all good - as both Judaism and Christianity have taught from the beginning - then it is an oxymoron to state that evil and good are "equal", like the Star Wars "force" which is a sort of cosmic electricity that can be used for either good or evil. That is another heresy Manichaeism (as noted above).

LOTR is a book about virtues and vices. The virtues are courage, friendship, self-sacrifice, pity, compassion, kindness, honesty, nobility and, above all, love. The vices are as black as the virtues are white: cowardice, malice, envy, pride, greed, hard-heartedness, cruelty and hate. In LOTR, Tolkien brings each of these - good and bad - before his readers for them to see embodied in both the great (Elrond, Gandalf, Aragorn, Galadriel) and the small (the hobbits to a "man"). Surprisingly, we may find the great vices at work even among the so called "good" in the story. Denethor is a classic example of envy and pride. On the other side, Sauron is the poster boy of all vices even including cowardice since "fear" ever gnaws at him. As well, there are ambivalent characters, those who could go either way - Boromir is one who has both virtues and vices and is saved by the virtues of courage and self-sacrifice in the end.

The answers here are simple; they are not terribly complex - but they are more difficult than climbing Everest in a bathing suit. The goals are plain, but achieving them is a lifetime crusade filled with success and failure and yet more of both until the course is run. Never confuse difficulty with complexity. The right thing to do is usually (but not always) simple to recognize; it's the doing of it that costs all we have to give.

[Eriol]

Walter, now you lost me, as it seems this thread has turned into a theology discussion. Do you defend complexity for its own sake? You said a few posts back that mankind and even Christian theologians are baffled by dualism. To the extent that they were baffled by it, they were not Christian theologians. Actually, many if not most of the writings of Christian theologians are spent in refutations of dualism. (Augustine, Hilary, Damascene, Thomas Aquinas... and by the way, I don't recall dualism being defended by Boëthius, if you would be so kind as to refer me to the work in which he did that?). Do you think these men "ignored complexity", or "ignored part of the facts"? Why do you think that?

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Eriol
You said a few posts back that mankind and even Christian theologians are baffled by dualism. To the extent that they were baffled by it, they were not Christian theologians. Actually, many if not most of the writings of Christian theologians are spent in refutations of dualism

Which is strange, considering that the early church fathers were influenced by Greek dualism of the body. The concept of an immortal soul and going to a heavenly or hellish realm at death is purely Platonic philosophy. It is not Hebrew or Christian and you will not find whole support for such a doctrine in the scriptures. And yet after the apostles died the church began to become influenced by this, especially when more and more Pagans were coming into the church.

Where were the apologists then?

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Thorin
Which is strange, considering that the early church fathers were influenced by Greek dualism of the body. The concept of an immortal soul and going to a heavenly or hellish realm at death is purely Platonic philosophy. It is not Hebrew or Christian and you will not find whole support for such a doctrine in the scriptures. And yet after the apostles died the church began to become influenced by this, especially when more and more Pagans were coming into the church.

Where were the apologists then?
Not in the East! Indeed, this is one of the reasons that the West's St. Augustine is only called "the Blessed" in the Orthodox Church since he definitely had dualist tendencies. I think you will find that the Eastern Church remained quite true to its understanding of the sanctity of the body as well as the "soul" (mind) and "spirit" and makes no division amongst them.

The pagan influence in the First Century was addressed by such books as The Epistle of Barnabas and the Didache (The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles) which set down the Church's prohibitions against such things as abortion, suicide, homosexual actions, euthanasia etc. Previously, such things were not necessary because the Church was mainly an offshoot of Judaism in which these things were already prohibited under Mosaic law.

It must also be remembered that it was during these early years that the Church was assembling the New Testament, keeping and rejecting works based upon conciliar judgments made by the bishops and Patriarchs of the original five Apostolic Sees, four of which were in the East - Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople and Alexandria and one in the West - Rome and the rest of the Church as it grew throughout the Middle East and beyond.

Much of the dualistic understanding arose later and doubtless influenced such great heresies as Ayrianism and Nestorianism. But in the East, the Church was able to continue its understanding of the sanctification of the body (after all, Christ had one and did not suffer diminution as a result thereof!) especially with the teachings of St. Paul ("...your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit...").

[Eriol]

My friends Thorin and Mrs. Maggott: be careful with your words and concepts. I was using the word 'dualism' in a loose sense as exemplified by Mrs. Maggott herself:

Are you suggesting that the forces of evil came into being without God? If so, then your God can hardly be said to be eternal, omnipotent, omniescent or omnipresent since obviously somethine else exists out there which is able to "create" without His involvement. That is a heresy which (I believe) is called dualism.

So 'dualism' in my post really meant the Manichean heresy that Evil has a separate nature from Good. It had absolutely nothing to do with the theory of man's composite nature as both material and spiritual creature. Dualism is a word associated with Descartes idea that this composite nature is assembled from two 'immiscible' substances, body and soul, which is, as you said, grounded in Platonism. But the 'dualistic tendencies' that Mrs. Maggott pointed out in St. Augustine were not similar to Descartes ideas (although also grounded in Platonism) . So we must have a word to address the 'Augustinian theory' of body and soul (which, by the way, does NOT imply that the body is not holy, as Mrs. Maggott infers in her post).

If you want to address that, fine with me, and let's call it dualism, but please note that my post concerned a completely different matter, the matter that was being discussed in the thread -- the Manichean heresy.

I would love to see man's composite nature discussed here, but I would like to keep our terms well-defined. Sorry if I led anyone into confusion.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Thank you for your clarifying words. Sometimes we are all saying the same thing and are not aware of it. Certainly evil has substance and is not just an "absence" of good. I think the big problem that most people have is how can evil exist if everything was created by God who is "all good". Well, the answer to that is, of course, free will. When you permit sentient beings to make their own choice - and that is what happened among both the angels and the Valar - there is always the possibility that someone is going to "do it his way" a la Frank Sinatra.

And, of course, when that happens, since all things have consequences (the butterfly theory of chaos), eventually you have the sad and sorry situation as it presently exists in this world and as Tolkien presented it in his. This is not something one can "blame" on God (unless one wishes to blame Him for Creation in the first place), but at the same time it is possible that totally innocent people may suffer the consequences of things over which they had no control (the drowning of Numenor, September 11th).

It is a very deep and tragic theme which is developed to a fair extent in Tolkien's works, especially in those characters (like Denethor or Boromir) where the ostensibly "good" engage in obviously "evil" behavior.

[Eriol]

Wise words Mrs. Maggott, but this is not surprising coming from you :) . I think that Tolkien's theology (M-E theology) was very much in agreement with what he knew of Catholic theology -- even if he was not a theologian, he was a devout Catholic and probably had more than a cursory interest in these matters, as can be seen from his letters. I find this a great help in interpreting major questions about M-E theology, such as the thread "Melkor -- Evil by Will or Evil by Nature" and similar ones.

Before the "anti-allegory" folks raise a complaint, notice I am talking about theology, not mythology, and that I am not saying the theology of the two worlds is the same, only that Tolkien tried to make his theology agree as much as he could with the 'real' (in his eyes) theology.

[Finrod]

Maggott:

Evil is the act of doing something against the decrees, commands, or will of God. NO, God did not create evil.God created man with a free will.The first sin was when Adam disobeyed God.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Finrod
Maggott:

Evil is the act of doing something against the decrees, commands, or will of God. NO, God did not create evil.God created man with a free will.The first sin was when Adam disobeyed God.
Absolutely! I agree and I thought I had made that quite clear. I am sorry if I have been unintentionally obtuse. It is the rejection of God in the rejection of His commands - the failure to be obedient and choosing one's own will over that of the Divine Will - which brings about evil.

Again, I am sorry if you misunderstood me. :eek:

[Finrod]

ok, I'm glad we don't disagree!

What are we debating now?

[Jesse]

Well,
I'll state my two cents:

I believe that God CAN be found in LotR. The Ring represents sin, and Sauron represents the Evil One. Gandalf the White, IMPO, represents Christ when he returns. Frodo represents the hope that the world can still be saved. What do you all say to that...?

[olorin the maia]

Well, that's one way to look at it. I would say that the books are subject to personal, i.e., subjective, interpretation, and certainly, you have the right to see them your way.
The Author, were he alive today (and would that he was!), wouldn't agree with that interpretation. He gave his version about hidden meanings, allegory and such, in a forword to one of the paperback editions long ago:
"As for any inner meaning or message, it has in the intention of the author none."
But that shouldn't (won't!) keep folks from finding their own meanings and messages in the books. That's part of the enjoyment of the Tale.:)

[Jesse]

Well put Olorin! Welcome to TheTolkienForum by the way. Incase no one's told you the following, I'll say it:

Did you know you can change the title you currently have? Notice mine: Child of the Great Spirit. In order to do this, go to UserCP then click on update profile and you'll see a box where you can type any title you want. Secondly, I strongly suggest you join a guild. Personally, the Elf guild is THE guild to join. Us Elves are very fun and caring. Next, if you have ANY questions, PM Beorn, (he's a moderator). I'm sure he can help you with your delima. Also, whenever you post in the Stuff and Bother thread, that post is not added to your post count. However I must warn you that you shouldn't be here if all you want to do is raise your post count. If that is the case, you're wasting time.

Once you reach 100 posts, you can have a custom avatar (the image under your screenname.) In order to have one made that meets the requirements for the board, I advise you go to the Stuff and Bother thread and ask *Lady Arwen* to make one for you. Tell her the image you want and if need be, the words. If you need a friend, I'd be honored to be yours. PM me sometime. Once again, welcome to TheTolkienForum!


P.S.--- DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT DOUBLE POSTING AND READ THE FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) BEFORE YOU POST.


ENJOY!

[Burb]

i havent read all the posts in this thread (for id be here for weeks...lol), i would just like to say that it is quite alright to think of LoTR as a parallell to religion, but it is not right to say that it was written for the sole purpose to be parallell to religion, or racism or whatever else it has been accused of.
the lord of the rings is a STORY written by a very gifted author about FICTIONAL events that happened in a FANTASY world that he created with his mind for the purposes of entertainment and enjoyment, and that is all.

the same thing happened to me before. i wrote a poem that had very personal meaning to me and others accused it of being a symbol of something else. even AFTER i specifically exlained what the actual meaning was they still didnt believe me, so all i can say is that if you find your god in lord of the rings, that is great, but dont expect every reader to see the same parallell.
thank you
:)

[Mrs. Maggott]

It suddenly came upon me that there is no one who can fail to see God in LOTR for a very simple reason: the book promotes the concept of "right" and "wrong". That alone is a guarantor of God; there can be no argument on that point.

It has been said that when one does not believe in God it is not that one believes in nothing, but rather that one then believes in anything. In the moral ethic of atheistic humanism - Utilitarianism - there is no concept of "absolutes"' there is no intrinsic "right and wrong", but rather, a relativistic understanding of actions and motives based upon individual circumstances. Hence, what may be "wrong" for one person, for another person who has a different cultural or personal ethic, that thing might be perfectly acceptable. Therefore, if there were no central Being who is all-good, omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent - "God" - active in LOTR, there could not be a side that represented either "good" or "evil", but merely two sides with conflicting moral ethics, neither of which being intrinsically better or worse than the other. Tthere would simply be "Gandalf's side" and "Saruon's side" and the folk of Middle-earth would find themselves falling into either category depending upon their individual - and equally valid - concept of reality.

The mere fact that the tale is presented as a tale of "virtue" and "scriptural morality" - that is, one which understands, accepts and defines our ancient understanding of "good" vs. "evil" - is absolute proof that there is a Supreme Being, an arbiter of morality, an Individual of absolute power who had defined the moral ethic of reality. Nor is this merely a matter of mere power wherein the most powerful within the tale is able to set the standard. For if that were the case, there still would be no absolute truth, no absolute "good" and "evil" but merely that which the most powerful being declared to be thus. Hence, we would be back to a standard of "good" and "evil" that might well be diametric to what we recognize and what is presented in the story as the proper standard! Consider for instance, if Melkor had defined the moral ethic and set the standard for what was "good" and what "evil", how every different things would be! Gandalf, Elrond, Aragorn etc. would be arch-villains while Saruman would be a worthy warrior for the "good"! No, it is not mere power that makes the standard as we know it, but supreme power coupled with absolute goodness - in other words, God.

[Burb]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
It suddenly came upon me that there is no one who can fail to see God in LOTR for a very simple reason: the book promotes the concept of "right" and "wrong". That alone is a guarantor of God; there can be no argument on that point.

It has been said that when one does not believe in God it is not that one believes in nothing, but rather that one then believes in anything. In the moral ethic of atheistic humanism - Utilitarianism - there is no concept of "absolutes"' there is no intrinsic "right and wrong", but rather, a relativistic understanding of actions and motives based upon individual circumstances. Hence, what may be "wrong" for one person, for another person who has a different cultural or personal ethic, that thing might be perfectly acceptable. Therefore, if there were no central Being who is all-good, omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent - "God" - active in LOTR, there could not be a side that represented either "good" or "evil", but merely two sides with conflicting moral ethics, neither of which being intrinsically better or worse than the other. Tthere would simply be "Gandalf's side" and "Saruon's side" and the folk of Middle-earth would find themselves falling into either category depending upon their individual - and equally valid - concept of reality.

The mere fact that the tale is presented as a tale of "virtue" and "scriptural morality" - that is, one which understands, accepts and defines our ancient understanding of "good" vs. "evil" - is absolute proof that there is a Supreme Being, an arbiter of morality, an Individual of absolute power who had defined the moral ethic of reality. Nor is this merely a matter of mere power wherein the most powerful within the tale is able to set the standard. For if that were the case, there still would be no absolute truth, no absolute "good" and "evil" but merely that which the most powerful being declared to be thus. Hence, we would be back to a standard of "good" and "evil" that might well be diametric to what we recognize and what is presented in the story as the proper standard! Consider for instance, if Melkor had defined the moral ethic and set the standard for what was "good" and what "evil", how every different things would be! Gandalf, Elrond, Aragorn etc. would be arch-villains while Saruman would be a worthy warrior for the "good"! No, it is not mere power that makes the standard as we know it, but supreme power coupled with absolute goodness - in other words, God.

WOW!!
this is a very intelligent post, more intelligent than i could ever dream up, however i get the impression from this view that "lord of the rings" is based on god because of the "good vs evil" factor. i have to disagree.

if that is the case, then every book, movie, basically everything to do with art and literature is based on god, and speaking as a writer i can guarantee that is not true.

i think when someone overthinks about something certain suggestions about meaning are created that has never even crossed the creator's mind. it is evident in the interpretation of art ever since art had first be called "art" but it does not mean that every interpretation that has been made about that art is right and true.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Burb
WOW!!
this is a very intelligent post, more intelligent than i could ever dream up, however i get the impression from this view that "lord of the rings" is based on god because of the "good vs evil" factor. i have to disagree.

if that is the case, then every book, movie, basically everything to do with art and literature is based