Finding God in "The Lord of the rings"

[Klessard]

Helleu.
I saw "The Fellowship of the ring" just yesterday. I had started to read the book about a month ago because I had fell on an article in "Focus on the Family" written by Jim Ware that shows that JRR Tolkien was a serious christian whose work was a metaphor of many biblical principles. I bet very few of you knew that. Those two guys (Jim Ware and Kurt Bruner) wrote a book called "Finding God in the Lord of the Rings." I haven't read it, but for what I've read of the trilogy and what the movie showed me, I saw it was very true ! Tolkien was actually a close friend of CS Lewis, and led him to Christ. Lewis wrote The Chronicles of Narnia, a huge allegory of the Gospel.

Have you noticed how the ring is a symbol of sin ? A ring of power suggest the sin of pride. Isn't pride the first sin ? Satan was thrown into Hell for it, because he tried to have his throne above God and rule all.
And the fact that it makes you invisible when you wear it evokes i think, the sin of lying. Lying allows you to do plenty of things that people won't know about. Satan is the "Fathen of lies."
Sin corrupts and makes you unhappy. So does the ring. Everybody is tempted to have it, and they are blinded when they possess it. Isn't sin just like that ?

There is another biblical principle in Gandalf's words: "Sauron doesn't share power" I'd say that Satan doesn't share power ! The Bible says that Satan's only wish is to destroy and kill. He tempts people, and uses them, but they are always betrayed.

Frodo Baggins as the ring bearer ? He, the small, weak Hobbit ? Compared to the strong elves, the ferocious dwarves and the powerful men, he seems quite ridiculous. But Jesus said that the great things were revealed to the simple ones, to the children, and it is to them that he gives great missions.

Are you convinced ?

Anyway, I'm quite glad about what Peter Jackson did with the book. He was faithful to Tolkien's spirit and those biblical values are very present, and glorious. The contrast between the power of evil and the power of good is very well illustrated. I think Tolkien worked with contrasts to bring out the dirtiness and ugliness of sin.

Well, God bless you all,

Ketsia

[Beorn]

Allegory-The representation of abstract ideas or principles by characters, figures, or events in narrative, dramatic, or pictorial form.

From the Foreword, LotR
...As for any inner meaning or 'message,' it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical. As the froty grew it put down roots (into teh past) and threw our unexpected branches: but its main theme was setled from the outset by the inevitable choice of the Ring as the link between it and The Hobbit...
Other arrangements could be devised acccording to the tastes or views of those who like allegory or topical refernce. But Icordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old an wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, ture or geigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of the readers. I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory;' but the one resides in the freedom of the deader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.

There...Tolkien outright says that he doesn't like telling a story through other stories, in your case, Christianity and LotR.

[LadyEowyn]

Wow, that was brilliant. I read that message over like 5 times, and It still shocks me. You explained that very well.

I think if it's possible I like the books even more now.=)

[Beorn]

Gimme a break!!!

I just wrote out an exact quote by the author, and you still don't believe it?!?!?

[LadyEowyn]

The Fellowship of the Ring
Copyright 1954, 1965, 1966 by J.R.R. Tolkien 1954 edition copyright renewed 1982 by Christopher R. Tolkien, Michael H. R. Tolkien, John F. R. Tolkien and Priscilla M.A.R. Tolkien
1965/1966 editions copyright renewed 1993, 1994 by Christopher R. Tolkien, John F.R. Tolkien, and Priscilla M.A.R. Tolkien.


The text of this edition of the Fellowship of the Ring contains all corrections and revisions that have been made since the original publication.


The place where you got your information in the book is called "Foreword to the second edition" which means it wasn't in the ones that J.R.R Tolkien wrote himself.

another quote from the book:

Some who have read the book, or at any rate have reviewed it, have found it boring, absurd, or contemptible; and I have no cause to complain, since I have similar opinions of their works, or of the kind of writing they evidently prefer. But even from the points of veiw of many who have enjoyed my story there is much that fails to please. It is perhaps not possible in a long tale to please everybody at all points, nor to displease everybody at the same points; for I find from the letters that I have received that the passages or chapters that are to some a blemish are all by others specially approved. The most critical reader of all, myself, now finds many defects, minor and major, but being fortunately under no obligation either to review the book or to write it again, he will pass over these in silence, except one that has been noted by others: the book is to short.

I typed that out for you so you could see it for yourself, notice how he says "I" Myself", and "me" a lot in this paragraph? Well, look at the paragraph that you typed out, and you will see that it has changed to something like "The author" instead of "I". That might not mean anything, but on the other hand it might mean a lot. For example, the first part of Foreword to the second edition was written by J.R.R. Tolkien, but the part that you typed out was written by someone else...Take what you want out of it, but I'm convinced that what i said is true.

[Gurthang]

I just read Mike B's quote again, and it still sounds to me like Tolkien wrote it himself.

It was probably included in the second edition's foreword because Tolkien hadn't even considered the possibility that people would take it as allegory (lots of comparissons have been made between the Lord of the Rings and the Cold War as well - the Ring is an atom bomb, it's power cannot be used for good purposes, the evil in the east, etc). This made Tolkien slightly miffed, to say the least, prompting him to put that in the foreword.

That's my opinion, anyway.

The Black Blade

[Beorn]

Yes, it is the "Foreword to the Second Edition" It is written by the author, JRRT

[Lord Snotty]

Originally posted by Mike B
Allegory-The representation of abstract ideas or principles by characters, figures, or events in narrative, dramatic, or pictorial form.

From the Foreword, LotR

There...Tolkien outright says that he doesn't like telling a story through other stories, in your case, Christianity and LotR.
yeah, but, God made it to be an allegory, even though Tolkien did'nt know it. BTW, the hobbits represent christians, since they don't need to were shoes, because there can't feel the stones and rubble on the ground.

[LadyEowyn]

Originally posted by Gurthang
I just read Mike B's quote again, and it still sounds to me like Tolkien wrote it himself.

It was probably included in the second edition's foreword because Tolkien hadn't even considered the possibility that people would take it as allegory (lots of comparissons have been made between the Lord of the Rings and the Cold War as well - the Ring is an atom bomb, it's power cannot be used for good purposes, the evil in the east, etc). This made Tolkien slightly miffed, to say the least, prompting him to put that in the foreword.

That's my opinion, anyway.

The Black Blade

Ok, you lost me, I'm not sure your talking about the same thing.

[celeste-jo]

Wow, Ketsia. Quite an intresting perspective. :)
I agree with you, you do have a really good point. The Ring does represent things that drive us towards evil, and the our capacity to lose ourselves in it. ;)

[Lantarion]

Okay, I think this thread has gone from "Finding God in the LotR" to "Did Tolkien write in Allegory?". We all now the answer to the second question, so let's move off of that, so we don't sidetrack any further.
Now. I don't know exactly what you mean by finding God. If you speak frankly, then I would say that Eru Iluvatar is God. There, you found him.
But, if I may make a shrewd guess, I think this is not the case. If you mean what does God represent himself as in the LotR, I will try to answer it:
To me, God means lots of things. I pretty much believe there is some strange power outside of the Earth, but I don't think it's watching over us, or we'd be doing a lot better. But I think that the Bible, being a metaphor in all accounts, shows God as a great, all-powerful being who drives, and even threatens people not to commit "sins", or non-moral actions, and to live a life praying to that invisible being, so they would not stray from their path. It's a great idea, really, and the Church got alot of power because of it. But that's the realistic side of it.
I really think that God is a thought; a thought which can be seen, or realized, by looking and concentrating on the simplest and prettiest things in life, like clouds, grass, waves, etc. But then you would be asking if Tolkien includes much nature and subconciously spiritual material in his works. As an answer to that, I say yes. There are certain links between Tolkien's life in the city (and the countryside) and his works, as well as his Christian life. But he writes in allegory subconciously, and doesn't intend to mean anything special: just the basic morals and ideas he has learned and adopted. There are small, again, subconcious teachings; like in Aesop's tales, but not intended and on a much smaller level. What God means to the author is what we see in his work, whether they intend us to or not.
But remember: metaphors can be found in everything, if we look hard enough.

[Gothmog]

So reading the posts on this subject it seems that either we have "A Higher Power" re-writing the Lord of the Rings before it is published or else Tolkien did not have a clue as to what he was putting down on paper!!!

In fact God did not make it "Alllegory" You the reader did that ALL by your self.

To use the sbuconcious as a prop for an agrument for Allegory devalues the argument. As Tolkien himself said:
I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.

The point being you cannot have "purposed domination of the author" and claim that it is 'subconcious'.

[Klessard]

Well, I caught some attention.

I'll tell you quite honestly, i don't really think it is possible to "find" God in the Lord of the rings, and I think that Ware and Bruner's title was maybe not well chosen. I am just saying that according to Humphrey Carpenter, who worte Tolkien's authorized biography, Tolkien's writings were "the work of a profoundly religious man."
TLOTR is not a religious book, and not an allegory. CS Lewis' books are allegoric I said, not Tolkien's.
But here is a quote from Tolkien himself, to Lewis:

"But don't you see Jack, The Christian Story is the greatest story of them all. Because it's the Real story."

Tolkien maybe didn't want to talk about God, but he was obviously christian and was rooted in the Biblical values. They are showing in the books, even if his will was not to write an allegory. You have to admit tLOTR probably has a few symbols...

Tolkien also said that "a story can be an invention about Truth."

If he believed in God's truth, he couldn't help but sharing his spiritual points of view. It is true for every writer.

Ketsia

[Gothmog]

Walter, I totaly agree with you about being able to find 'God' anywhere. This is because your God is with you wherever you look you cannot help bt find your god. As you say 'God' is different for each.

The true wonder of The Lord of the Rings is that It was written in One way, Tolkiens'. But it can be read in many different ways and mean so many thing to so many people. That is due to what was left to the "Freedom of the Reader".

Klessard, Yes Tolkien was a Christian. And no doubt could not write from any other base. But he kept out of the book those things that would have labeled it 'Christian' and allowed it to be applicable to All religions and none. Something that not many could do.

And welcome to the forum.

[proudfoot]

The Book does have a lot of Christian themes:

1. The Power of a weak individual to make a difference.

2. The Choice between Good and Evil.

3. The idea of evil being rooted in pride, rebellion and an urge to destroy what is good.

4. All human insttitutions can be corrupted.

There are also Pagan themes, the main one being the idea of a Golden Age in the past which can never be regained. Everything is getting worse, becoming less as time goes on.

Tolkien's Gods, particularly Iluvatar, are also capricious and unforgiving. The elves have Eternal Life and access to the Undying Lands, men have neither. The men of Numenor are punished savagely for trying to alter a fate which is unexplained and seemingly unjust.

[hambut]

Have you seen www.hobbitlore.com (http://www.hobbitlore.com), yet? It talks about the connection between myth and reality and has lots of quotes from Tolkien and Lewis on the connection between Christianity and myth.

[Gothmog]

Proudfoot.

Of the 4 themes you used, none are "Christian" as thay can be found in many religions. As for the one you cited as "Pagan", have a look at the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

As for the fate of Elves and Men and the punishment of Newmenor, the Elves are tied to Arda Men are not this is the way of Middle earth. The men of Numenor were punished because they tried to steal what was not theirs, The Land of Aman. The fates of Men and Elves was explained to them as well as was possible. The fact that in their stupidity the Kings of Numenor thought that the land of Aman gave imortality did not give them the right to steal that land from those that lived there.

[ReadWryt]

I doubt you are going to find God in the Lord of the Rings. Did you try looking in the Sock drawer, that's where I find things I have lost sometimes?

I suppose that because you have "Angelic Beings" and a "Fall" and a "Creator" and all you can "Find" God in Tolkien's Middle-earth writings...hell, I can find God in the same way in Beowulf or Wagner's Ring Cycle...what's the point?? I mean, there are so many more DIFFERENCES between Middle-earth and the Christian world that one would be looking for an alien being in a land apart from his creation.

There are no Temples or Organized Worship, Illuvitar casts Morgoth out long before Men walk the land, and indeed before the land had been created, which is not even close to the Satan story. In letter #165 to Houghton Mifflin Co. of the Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, the Author spoke on this matter...

"I am in any case myself a Christian; but the `Third Age' is not a Christian world."

[Klessard]

Thank you for welcoming me in your forum. Quite an interesting place !

I've found another quote that explains my point, from Tolkien himself:

« "The Lord of the Rings" is of course a fundamentally religious and Christian work. Unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. »

What about that ?

Anyway, I have ordered the book "Finding God in the Lord of the Rings". I'll read it, and maybe get back to you with it.

Ketsia

[ReadWryt]

Oh well... I have a friend who found God through his Comparative Mythologies studies...so I pretty much suppose one could find God anywhere. *Shrug* Good luck to you.

Walter,

I know you did not say "Find Christianity", but the presumption on most parts is that since Tolkien is the Catholic who witnessed so powerfully to C.S. Lewis that Lewis eventually bent his knee to Christ then his writings about Middle-earth, like Lewis's about Narnia, must be based in Christianity. Tolkien admitted on several occasions that he could not help that which he sub-consciously inserted into his writings that were alegorical or derived from his religious nature and relationship to Catholosism and that there would inevitably end up being aspects of these things in his stories.

That being said though, there are a great deal more writings in his letters of him explaining the myriad differences between Middle-earth cultures and practices and those of organized religion, as well as the disconnect between Illuvatar and the God of Abraham. He points out several times that the Valar are almost Sub-creative gods under Illuvitar and indeed were able to create races.

While I realize that there is quite little of the Silmarillion in The Lord of the Rings, I just use these facts as they were pointed out to me by Tolkien's writings to illustrate that it was not his intent to "put God" in his epic, but then I suppose that if God (The God of Abraham and Moses) wanted in there one would be hard pressed to stop him....I'm just saying though that one should probably not go looking for him in Lord of the Rings with the impression that Tolkien put him there on purpose.

I finish this with a quote from The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien wich at first blush would contradict my claims, but if one is mindfull of the context and precisely what Tolkien is saying one can see what I am saying is true...

In The Lord of the Rings the conflict is not basically about `freedom', though that is naturally involved. It is about God, and His sole right to divine honour. The Eldar and the Numenoreans believed in `The One', the True God, and held worship of any other person an abomination.Letter #183 from the Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien (Notes on W.H. Auden's review of The Return of the King

Taken in the context of the Silmarillion one knows that `The One' the Eldars held dear was Eru (Illuvatar)...creator of Middle-earth, who was not at all similar to the God I'm certain this book claims to "find".

While I could myself, with help from other more skilled and knowlegable Comparative Mythologists, write a book about "Finding God in the Egyptian book of the Dead" I'm certain that even should it make as good a case for the "discoveries" as this other book makes about LotR, it would not be a popular read for most Christians, but in light of the hype over the Film I do find it a bit disturbing that people are attempting to use Tolkien's Non-Christian writings as a fulcrum to pry more converts into the fold...

[jcharlesberry]

this is an age-old argument, so let me clear it up for you all -> both of the first two posters are correct. Tolkien did not like allegory. He in fact criticised Lewis' works that used allegory - but this is only because he felt Christ could not be represented in literature apart from the bible. He wanted protags who were "Christ-like."

Examples in LOTR: Frodo says "I wish the ring never came to me." or "Father let this cup pass from me." but yet both he and Christ pressed forward. Same thing with having to drop the ring in Mt Doom. But he is chosen by Aragorn because he seems the most capable in innocence. It's the weak, yes, and not the mighty.

Anyway, so it is not allegory in the age-old Pilgrim's Progress or Hind's feet on High Places - but it is definitely a Christian story in the good v. evil and personal sacrifice issues. These are the themes that make this fiction what it is. That's all. No need to quarrel.

Oh, most importantly to all of you should be the fact that Tolkien was a researcher of Anglo-Saxon lit (go read Beowulf) and a philologist. The thing he really wanted to do with LOTR is, first, create languages, second, create the characters that would speak them and he derived these from Northern European myth, then LASTLY he added the story to tie it all together. The quoting from the books and all is fine here but I'm sure you are all making more of the Middle Earth mythos than Tolkien intended.

Jackson has done a great job IMO btw.

[proudfoot]

The religion of Tolkien's world was definitely NOT Christian. The creation myth is a straight pagan take. Tolkien needed that sort of background to provide a basis for the North-European epic mythology he was creating.

However, the tale of LOTR itself does contain heavily Christian themes in a way that say the Wagner Ring Cycle/Nibelungenlied does not. The "Ring Cycle" is based on entirely pagan themes of battles between capricious Gods, vengeance and ultimate destruction at Ragnarok. The Lord of the Rings is based on individual courage and integrity. Every character has to make a personal choice between integrity and corruption, good and evil, every character is judged on how they face temptation. These are very Christian themes, not often found elsewhere.

To amplify my earlier point, Paganism tends to look back to a Golden Age, while Christianity (in spite of the brief period in the Garden) implies that hope lies in the future and that the "best" is yet to come.

The pagan elements in Middle Earth centre around this theme of the departed Golden Age, and also the themes of fate and destiny, which are heavily bound up with the bloodlines and purity of the blood of various characters. The "best" characters have the "purest" bloodlines, Aragorn is of the line of Numenor, even Frodo had adventurous Took blood. In pagan societies, bloodlines were all-important because kings liked to trace their lineage back to the Gods.

The book is seen as reflecting Christianity in that it transcends these pagan elements with the themes of temptation, corruption and hope mentioned above.

[jcharlesberry]

>>The religion of Tolkien's world was definitely NOT Christian.<<

The religious actions of Tolkien's protagonists and antagonists definitely are; allegory and literalism are not needed.


>> the Wagner Ring Cycle/Nibelungenlied<<

This with its flashback to their own creation myth is a genetic memory marker of the true story in the bible. Tolkien realised the commonality of mythos across all cultures.

>>capricious Gods, vengeance and ultimate destruction at Ragnarok. The Lord of the Rings is based on individual courage and integrity. Every character has to make a personal choice between integrity and corruption, good and evil, every character is judged on how they face temptation. These are very Christian themes, not often found elsewhere.<<

Exactly; agreed.

>>To amplify my earlier point, Paganism tends to look back to a Golden Age, while Christianity (in spite of the brief period in the Garden) implies that hope lies in the future and that the "best" is yet to come. <<

Not really true. The garden is to be regained - and also inside.

>>the themes of fate and destiny, which are heavily bound up with the bloodlines and purity of the blood of various characters. The "best" characters have the "purest" bloodlines, Aragorn is of the line of Numenor, even Frodo had adventurous Took blood. In pagan societies, bloodlines were all-important because kings liked to trace their lineage back to the Gods. <<

Paul the apostle spoke of his bloodlines, as did the bible for Jesus - it was **indispensible** in light of orthodox soteriology.


>>The book is seen as reflecting Christianity in that it transcends these pagan elements with the themes of temptation, corruption and hope mentioned above.<<

sure, but we identify genetically as we did with the genetic memory markers in such films as "The Exorcist"

[Ancalagon]

I find that in all threads relating to religion and The Lord of the Rings, the only protagonists that find the relation are Christian. I have yet to hear the opinion of a Muslim, Jew, Hindi or Seikh in relation to discovering a link to their own view of religion. I do not deny that comparisons can be found for all religions of the world, for the simple fact that the story contains a 'moral structure' relevant to all society. This moral structure or fabric is not exclusive to Christianity, though it seems the desire to find allegory in Tolkiens myth is strongest within this faith.
Why is this?
Do Christians, more than most, feel it essential to justify their enthusiasm for something that is clearly not Christian but more atuned to 'paganism'.

Does this stem from the pulpit where Ministers have condemned all works that relate to 'dungeons and dragons', which has become in recent years a by-word in Christian circles as tantamount to 'witchcraft' for the modern age.

Before you blow fuses and cast dispersions in my direction, consider that I am not telling you, but simply asking. BTW, the question made sense in my head!!!
:)

[Kris Rhodes]

Tolkien, in the forward to the books which he supplied to a later edition, specifically warned his readers not to look for allegory in the books.

More to the point, he asked you to please not confuse "applicability" with "allegory."

I am of the opinion that the moral vision of LOTR is deeply connected with Tolkien's own moral vision, which in turn was shaped by his thoughtful and deeply felt brand of christian understanding. And this shows in the books.

-Kris

[Tar-Palantir]

I think it goes wothout saying that, had Tolkien not been a devout Roman Catholic, LOTR would have been a drastically different book - or never even written.

Of course, knowing an author's religion and finding the religion in his/her work are two different things. But, Tolkien himself said that "The Lord of The Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision" (Letters p172). I'm not sure how prevalent then notion of "sacrifice" is in the world's other religions, but it IS a major Christian theme....and it's all over LOTR.

As for the "looking back to a Golden Age" comments above, I don't see it. Sure things were great before Melkor went ape, but I would think that living in Valinor forever in eternal bliss wouldn't be too bad of a future to look forward to for the Elves. In regards to Men, remember Aragorn's words to Arwen on his deathbed (to me, the most beautiful JRRT ever wrote)? Sounds like he's talking about heaven to me.

Check out "Tolkien: A Celebration" edited by Joseph Pearce. It's a collection of essays by scholars on JRRT's work. Judging from the preface and the chapter titles, many deal with the religious aspects of his work - in part by using JRRT's own letters and comments. I just picked it up the other day, so forgive my lack of quotes from the book.

[ReadWryt]

It's astounding that National Geographic showed 45 minutes of TV special about the inspirations that led to Tolkien writing The Lord of the Rings, and not once was Catholosism mentioned. WWI, the Finnish Kalevala (Which inspired young Tolkien so greatly that he learned Finnish while still in grade school to read it in the original language), Iceland's Poetic Edda (Circa 800-1000 a.d.) in which are poems containing all the Dwarvish names as well as his beloved Beowulf, of which his interpretation is one of the most highly aclaimed for it's accuracy not only to the translation from Old English, but for the care with which he matched the meter and rhythm of the poem.

In fact, of all of these I would have to say that the Kalevala is closest to Lord of the Rings. It is the tale of a powerful Finnish shamen who uses his courage, will, wisdom and magic to improve the life of his people and bring social order and peace to the land in the face of great evil, and eventually Väinämöinen has to be party to the destruction of the most powerful magic item ever forged, the Sampo. It si an object that is partially the Dome of the Stars and yet can also be used as a type of Mill that grinds out wealth for whomever posseses it.

Here is the address of a fairly good summary of the Kalevala's 50 Runo http://www.edj.net/mc2012/fiftyrunos.htm

Of course there is Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, another manuscript he painstakingly translated. I don't though think that it was a mistake that he was so taken with the Anglo-Saxon language so early on and at a time when a great Angle ship was uncovered buried in England, filled with treasure and the body of a great A.S. leader.

Or perhaps more of an effect was growing up in a quiet rural town off the beaten track where he and hsi brother were free to roam about the woods and find adventure, growing up to go to University and still loving the sleepy little village of his birth while a dark and powerful evil rose up to strike fear into the hearts of his agrarian neighbors, sending him off to France to lead a squad of men in WW I. Seeing what even the simplest of men, stout hearted and under educated, were capable of in the heroics of freeing Europe. After all, aside from some very early textural sketches about Eru and the Valar from 1912, the formative writings of what would become the Lord of the Rings were scratched in notebooks in the trenches of Somme, the muddiest, most death filled battlefield in all of Europe.

You are correct in that whatever philosophical belief an author might hold dearly there is no way that they can, without great conscious effort, keep their view, opinions and morals out of their writings...I just can't let anyone go off thinking that there was an overt effort on Tolkien's part to create allegory.

By the way, if anyone knows Finnish here is the URL of a site that compares the Kalevala to the Silmarillion...http://gamma.nic.fi/~timbbach/tutkielma.html

Oh! And another interesting book is "Meditations on Middle-earth". It's edited by Karen Haber and has essays by Orson Scott Card, Ursula K. Le Guin, Harry Turtledove, Poul Anderson, George R.R. Martin and a bunch of others...

[jcharlesberry]

ReadWryt - very interesting, thank you. I always would point out and re-emphasise on my part, that Tolkien was creating languages. Apart from this desire is the uniqueness of Finnish and Hungarian in the European continent - known as Fino-Hugaric languages - different than the Indo-European languages that most of us know. So we have a genetic memory marker from way back in the Caucasus and from these other Fino-hugaric stream and a story that may have been drawn from Finnish into an Indo-European language next (similar to Greek -> Roman). This must be one of the primary reasons this is such a popular story in the West and East, the Inklings as a whole drawing on Orthodox belief in their writing and uniting West and East. I wonder what the reading stats of LOTR is in Africa or the Aboriginal cultures. Just a hypothesis, neat nevertheless. But this is a wondrous work of resonance I believe because of hope in the darkness - definitely not allegory. My undergrad work was partly in Literature and we learned the 20th Cent. saw the fading of that type of story anyway. As for Nat. Geog, that's no surprise. You can purposefully see what you will in anyone's writing. The interesting thing is to see what they intended you to see. I think we should look for the fact that these stories are popular for a reason. But why? Because they contain pieces of the truth. Seek and you shall find. Still very beautiful.

Walter - I am sorry that was a cocky answer. In fact it was a reply to the very first two or three posters - but that still does not excuse me. Sorry to everyone for the tone of my post. Thank you for the welcome, too, Walter. I find this a very friendly and cordial board.

[Wesley_Skiddles]

about this beautiful, gold, sulphur- and volcano-smelling ring I found.

But I am not feeling sinful about it. Not yet anyway.

[Ancalagon]

Posted also in The Hobbit as a Religious Parable

You also have to remember that this is a 'worldwide' forum, encapsulating every ethnicity, culture and faith. Any fan of Tolkien can pick up his work and see a window into some aspect of their faith. The Bible is one of many books or codes to devine wisdom and learning, all of which have generally the same founding principles and moral code in their genetic make-up.

I feel the question is not to try to draw parallels with the Christianity alone, but to embrace the underlying themes that are evident in all faiths of the world. Understand the major religions of this world and you will know what binds us. Learn the Germanic, Celtic, Slavic and Norse mythologies and you will see Tolkien as a comparison. His work is relevant to all and exclusive to none.

[Bryheinnen]

From my perpective, those who would like to keep Tolkien's Christian beliefs out of LOTR are fighting a losing battle. As I've said in other posts, this is not an ordinary book. This is a book that is an epiphany for many who have read it. It changes lives.
Tolkien has subcreated a complete and integrated proto-Christian world in LOTR, as is compatible with his beliefs as one of the Oxford Christians (including Lewis and Williams).
It may lack the specific hallmarks of Chistianity, but this book has a habit of leading it's readers to other books---the Bible in particular through the values and yearning for things higher and purer it engenders.
Some obvious parallels: Melchizedek- Bombadil;
Elbereth - the Virgin Mother
Eru Iluvatar - Yahwe

The Maiar and other "powers" in LOTR and the Silmarillion are well in line with the idea that Lewis, Tolkiens colleague, expressed about the Eldila in his own trilogy---that their existence is not embracing paganism, and that it is not unChristian to accept their existence---that is only wrong when one worships them instead of their Master, the One, who created them all. "I am the Alpha and the Omega..."

Sorry guys---for those on this board who might be annoyed by the Chrisitian influences that permeate this work and would like to ignore it, I think you just can't do that and maintain your intellectual honesty.

[jcharlesberry]

.I feel the question is not to try to draw parallels with the Christianity alone, but to embrace the underlying themes that are evident in all faiths of the world. Understand the major religions of this world and you will know what binds us. Learn the Germanic, Celtic, Slavic and Norse mythologies and you will see Tolkien as a comparison. His work is relevant to all and exclusive to none.

You again miss Tolkien's intention. As I stated, Tolkien used things that we are familiar with, i.e. being a Germanic culture, to couch his Christian characters in. Note I did not say "biblical characters," which could imply 1-to-1 allegory. Again, he felt that Christ could not be properly represented in his fiction, i.e. Christ was too perfect for his writing and he could not do Him justice, and neither did he wish to just rewrite biblical stories - but he rewrote Northern myth, his specialty. Plus, his initial want was for his languages he made.

Tolkien would not ascribe to your statements here that he wrote his stories for everyone to pull out what they want from the stories. This is a postmodernist belief and the corollary belief that all roads lead to the same place would also be something that he would not support. These are two logical fallacies that the Inklings struggled with in their age.

[ReadWryt]

On writing the Middle-earth Mythos and it's nature as a gift to England...

"..I was from early days grieved by the poverty of my own beloved country: it had no stories of it's own (bound up with it's tongue and soil), not of the quality that I sought, and found (as an ingrediant) in legends of other lands. There were the Greek, and Celtic, and Romance, Germanic Scandinavian and Finnish (which greatly affected me); but nothing English, save impoverished chap-book stuff. Of course there was and is all the Arthurian world, but powerfull as it is, it is imperfectly naturalized, associated with the soil of Britain but not with the English; and it does not replace what I felt missing. For one thing it's `faerie` is too lavish, and fantastical, incoherant and repetitive. For another and more important thing it is involved in, and explicitly contains the Christian religion.

For reasons which I will not elaborate, that seems to me fatal. Myth and Fairy-story must, as all art, reflect and contain in solution elements of moral and religious truths (or error), but not explicit, not in the known form of the primary `real' world. (I am speaking, of course, of our present situation, not of ancient pagan, pre-Christian days...) From a letter to Milton Waldman in 1951 published both in the Forward of the Second Edition of the Silmarillion as well as being letter # 131 in the year 2000 edition of The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien.

This is why I say that his intent was not to create a mythology which contains Christian allegory. He may well, as I have said previously, have ended up doing so inadvertantly, I don't know. I've allways taken the man at his word and not looked for it, even when I was a Fundimentalist Christian myself. *Shrug*

[jcharlesberry]

>>but not explicit, not in the known form of the primary `real' world.<<

As I wrote and agreed

>Note I did not say "biblical characters," which could imply 1-to-1 allegory.<

It is that Arthur is Jesus and Mordred is Satan and etc etc. But in Tolkien's works *it is* that Aragorn, Gandalf, and Frodo are all little christs (Christians) who have overcome in some fashion. Gandalf returns. Frodo sails away ("ascends"). Rivendell is a type of heaven as is the White Tower. The bible is full of typologes as such. Someone pointed out Melchizedek, a type of Christ (although some hold him to be a Christophany).

He is against a 1-to-1 allegory- but when I put the 1-to-1 there it is redundant! In case you do not know what allegory is then take the fact that Aslan in the Narnian Chronicles is Christ - and no one else in the same tales. But in Tolkien's tales there are many Christs and many demons and many unbelievers etc etc. This is because the 20th Century saw much of allegorical tales change. There was no longer a 1-to1 correspondence in most of these, but inspirational or exemplary tales. Much Afraid in Hannah Hunard's Hind's Feet on High Places is a type of overcoming Christian - but she meets many others in the road who are identified with differing types of believers and unbelievers, i.e. their complexity increased.

This is why my first post was that both views are correct. It is not allegory but it is Christian.

[jcharlesberry]

I believe some did not understand what allegory really was. For my part, sorry to lecture if indeed they did know.

[Ekthelion]

An interesting discussion indeed. It would be interesting to hear the views of someone of the hindu or muslim faith and the relationships they found between their faith and Tolkien's mythology. It would also be interesting to see how popular the book was among people of other faiths - do those of a christian background or faith find the book more appealing than those of another faith because they identify more with the themes?

I found the Silmarillion provoked the most thought for myself as the creation story has similarities to the biblical story. Unfortuanetly I am ignorant of creation stories of other faiths so cannot compare their similarities. This is a shame and an area I will endeavor to educate myself in.

Reading LOTR didn't bring so many thoughts on God for me but I found the Christian principles that Tolkien believed in.
I don't feel he intended to write the book promoting a Christian message or a Pagan one and infact discouraged people from taking that from the book in the forward quoted earlier. I think he wanted people to enjoy the book and world he had created for what it was and not look too deeply for some hidden meaning in it all. I also felt the history and storylines were very inspired by the mythologies that he loved, I think the difference being that the character reflected his Christian values rather than pagan ones.

So going back to the original question of the thread I think the story can provoke thoughts and questions about God but probably won't lead you to any divine revelation :)

[Smokey]

Tolkien was not trying to make an allegory. He said so himself. However his faith went into what he wrote. Being a christian myself if I wrote a story there would be certain things I would add or take out because I am a christian.

[Ancalagon]

You must not underestimate Tolkiens desire in creating Middle-Earth, complete with its own history, Launguage and geography. It is apparent that there is the destinct absence of any religion (even politics) in his work. He was at pains to create something altogether mythical, free of religious trappings, pomp and ceremony. His world displays values, not exclusive to christianity, but to all religions, societies and class structures, however no-where does he display allegory to Christianity. He does however show signs throughout of individuals petitioning the will or mercy of the (Ainur) gods; an example that springs to mind is Luthiens song to Mandos regarding the spirit of Beren. Why is this?

[proudfoot]

Originally posted by Ancalagon
(Tolkien's) world displays values, not exclusive to christianity, but to all religions, societies and class structures, however no-where does he display allegory to Christianity. He does however show signs throughout of individuals petitioning the will or mercy of the (Ainur) gods

One of the dangers of living in a culture that was built on Christian values, is that we can begin to imagine that those Christian values are just "general" values, which everybody shares naturally, whatever religious background, (or otherwise,) they have.

I don't think this is true at all. There is no cold logical basis for self-sacrifice for people not in your immediate family. There is no logical basis for throwing away the power of the ring, as Tolkien's heroes do, because it would harm others. Using cold logic, Galadriel or Gandalf should take the ring, do what they want, and sod everyone else! It is Christian teaching that makes us consider it natural to consider the effect of our acts upon others.

And not all religions teach the same moral precepts. Some people see killing thousands of innocent civilians as a religious act. The Aztecs thought it fine to rip out tens of thousands of hearts. Other religions teach fatalism - nothing that we do can alter anything, so do nothing. All of these are contrary to Tolkien's message - which is firmly Christian based.

The fact that Tolkien uses pagan-style Gods and godlings in his universe does not take away from this. If you look at real pagan legends you will not see the same moral imperatives you see in Tolkien. You will see heroes out for revenge, or on the make, or just exploring and looking for adventure. The power of Tolkien lies partly in the moral message. LOTR isn't an allegory, but it is perhaps a parable.

[Bryheinnen]

I've heard that before---from Lin Carter, who damns LOTR with faint praise. To him the fact that there was no omnipresent pantheon of exotic gods was a serious failing of the book.

What he didn't realize---and you, Ancagalon, evidently also don't---is that religion is so organic, so much a seamless part of the warp and woof of the tapestry Tolkien weaves that it need not hit you in the face. It's just THERE, like the musical score of a movie, seldom noted in itself but compelling nonetheless.

This IS a relgious book. Values are nice, but homilies about values and ethics alone don't change lives---faith (translate: religion) does. Religion/faith appeals to the spirit. Values appeal only to the intellect.

LOTR is incontestably a book that CHANGES LIVES. Only holy books do that---the Bible, the Torah, etc. Religion is the life's breath of this book. To say that it is absent because you don't have pantheons of weird gods like you find in the swords and sorcery trash all too prevalent on bookshelves today simply says to me---apologies---that your insight into the books is limited.

[ReadWryt]

Thats funny...If I had to name the last book that I felt changed my life it was "Myths to live by" by Joseph Campell, and before that it was "Science and Sanity" by Alfred Kyzorbski. One is a book about the Social Anthropological necessity of Myths and Hero Quests, and the other is a scientific book about Neuro-psychology and the science of General Semantics.

I would call neither of these books "holy", and indeed being an agnostic I may be missing the "Holiness" in them, but they had vast and profound effect on the workings of my mind and the manner in which I relate to the world around me on a day to day basis. I remember when I was a Christian and sections of the Bible would do similar things for me, in some cases the revelations are with me still which are a testimony to the power of their truth as well as their "life changing" nature.

As for characters in the Lord of the Rings being "little christs", well...I suppose he IS the most popular martyr in western culture and so one might use him as a yardstick by which you measure other characters of a similar nature. I could, were I inclined to, go on and on about Archtypes, quote Jung and Campbell and generally dance around the huge number of Mythical figures that these characters are far more like then Christ, but I fear that even after quoting Tolkien saying he was conciously avoiding Christian Themes, that the Third Age was not a Christian World and that Tolkien detested Conscious Allegory I would sooner sway people from their faith in the God of Abraham as I would that Tolkien intentionally created a Christian story...

[Ancalagon]

LOTR is incontestably a book that CHANGES LIVES. Only holy books do that---the Bible, the Torah, etc. Religion is the life's breath of this book. To say that it is absent because you don't have pantheons of weird gods like you find in the swords and sorcery trash all too prevalent on bookshelves today simply says to me---apologies---that your insight into the books is limited.

Where does my ignorance end and yours begin?

Religion: a belief in God or gods; a system of worship and faith; a formalised expression of belief.

Religious: of or conforming to religion; devout, pious; scrupulously and conscientiously faithful.

If you choose to view TLOTRs with blinkered vision then so be it. Do not tell me I do not understand the content therein because I do not look with your narrow-mindedness. Religion does not play a role in these books nor it it ever intended. Life-changing? Please tell me how your life has been changed by reading these works in relation to bringing you closer to god.

When I said the books;
(Tolkien's) displays values, not exclusive to christianity, but to all religions, societies and class structures, however no-where does he display allegory to Christianity.

you can also be quoted as saying; This IS a relgious book. Values are nice, but homilies about values and ethics alone don't change lives---faith (translate: religion) does. Religion/faith appeals to the spirit. Values appeal only to the intellect.

Yet earlier you say; It may lack the specific hallmarks of Chistianity, but this book has a habit of leading it's readers to other books---the Bible in particular through the values and yearning for things higher and purer it engenders.

My debate is not solely in relation to The Bible, but many of the most widely held belief systems in the world. You are so cocooned in your own small world that yours alone is the one true religion and that should be acknowledged by all. Is it Religion that permeates this work? If so, is it only the Christian Religion that you see within? Could it at all be possible that a Muslim find something in this work that would appeal to him or her? Am I ignorant of Tolkien? Well I must be; for I am glad that I am without prejudiced, illiberal and limited vision when I understand his 'message'. It is not a religious message, even though if appeals to the spirit.

That said, I am pleased for you that you are able to satisfy your spiritual thirst quenched within these works.
Sadly, for me I will just have to be satisfied with the values that appeal to my intellect, though even that you have called into question.

[syongstar]

the lords prayer says "Gods kingdom on earth as in heaven" everyone in the fellowship shows qualities of being a higher pruposed person. When christians meet the call it "fellowship"

[Snaga]

I think I love LotR in part because there is no overt worship of Gods. The (good) peoples of ME revere those among them and their ancestors who have through great deeds earnt their esteem.

But then I'm an atheist and I am not trying to look for divinity in this work. I find inspiration in it, because the little people do good by their own will and decision, i.e. Frodo both with Gandalf at Bag End, and at the Council of Elrond, not because of the will of a god.

In ME, only Sauron desires worship... and he is evil.

[Ekthelion]

I also enjoy the fact that there is no religion in Middle Earth and I'm a Christian (just to show that you don't have to be an atheist to appreciate it). I couldn't stand it in Raymond E Feist and David Eddings books where all the evil came from some all powerful evil god. By avoiding any religion and too much influence from the Valar etc the story focuses on the people of Middle Earth and their desires and behaviour. Sauron did not start out evil but is corrupted by power and the influence of Morgoth, several times he is given a chance to redeem himself but never controls his lust for power. It is this focus rather than some indeterminate source of all evil that makes the story so much more interesting than the rash of fantasy books now out there. In fact almost every other fantasy book series out there relies on a host of gods to provide the battle between good and evil while Tolkien simply looks at the nature of men (elf, hobbit etc) and the different ways they go. His stories are littered with people who are corrupted by power or jealousy - not some evil god taking control of them. There also those who do great deeds not out of faith but out of friendship and love for their fellows.I think it is the avoidance of any religion in Middle Earth that is a contributing factor to it's greatness. Also by removing religion it makes a distinction between our world and Tolkien's. Therefore he also hopes to avoid any allegory.

[The Sindar]

Originally posted by proudfoot


One of the dangers of living in a culture that was built on Christian values, is that we can begin to imagine that those Christian values are just "general" values, which everybody shares naturally, whatever religious background, (or otherwise,) they have.

I don't think this is true at all. There is no cold logical basis for self-sacrifice for people not in your immediate family. There is no logical basis for throwing away the power of the ring, as Tolkien's heroes do, because it would harm others. Using cold logic, Galadriel or Gandalf should take the ring, do what they want, and sod everyone else! It is Christian teaching that makes us consider it natural to consider the effect of our acts upon others.

And not all religions teach the same moral precepts. Some people see killing thousands of innocent civilians as a religious act. The Aztecs thought it fine to rip out tens of thousands of hearts. Other religions teach fatalism - nothing that we do can alter anything, so do nothing. All of these are contrary to Tolkien's message - which is firmly Christian based.

The fact that Tolkien uses pagan-style Gods and godlings in his universe does not take away from this. If you look at real pagan legends you will not see the same moral imperatives you see in Tolkien. You will see heroes out for revenge, or on the make, or just exploring and looking for adventure. The power of Tolkien lies partly in the moral message. LOTR isn't an allegory, but it is perhaps a parable.



The Aztecs may have ripped out thousands of hearts, but where are they today? Gone. Dead. I'm glad too, honestly.

Not all religions may believe in these Christian ethics, but I believe that overall, most do. Almost everyone around the entire world believe murder to be a bad thing, stealing is bad, lying is bad... Its universal. Its not just Christians, and if you think that it is, then you haven't been to other parts of the world and you are an Aztec wannabe...

And nobody thinks that killing thousands of innocent people is an ok thing. They may think it's a religious act, but they don't think that its righteous to do. When people do stuff like that, they know that it's wrong, and that they're going to pay dearly for it, or else they wouldn't kill themselves in the process and have to suffer later.

[ReadWryt]

I certainly hope that nobody will attempt to tell a Muslim that because the Khoran speaks out against murder, rape, stealing, adultery and covetous activities that they have "Christian" ethics. Face it, if you distill Christianity down to that which it does not share with so many other Faiths/Religions/Philosphies you have "God the Father", "Christ the Son" and the "Holy Spirit"...none of which can be found in any way in Lord of the Rings in a unique manner that sets them apart from Siddhartha, Persephonie, Achilles, Krishna or generally does not do all or several of the following things that characters do on a hero quest...

1. Hero sets forth from commonday hut; is lured, carried away, or proceeds voluntarily to the threshold or
(Refuses the call)
2. If he accepts, he encounters a protective figure (aged person)
3. He then encounters a shadowy presence as guard [i.e. threshold guardian] and
4. Defeats or conciliates this power
5. He goes alive into the kingdom of the dark or
6. Is "slain" by opponent and descends in death
7. He journeys through unfamiliar yet strangely intimate [leaves ordinary world]
8. Forces, some of which severly threaten (tests)
9. And others give magical aid (helpers)
10. He arrives at the nadir [low decisive point]
11. And undergoes supreme ordeals or gains a reward
12. He has a union wiht the goddess but
13. Must go beyond the temptation to remain wiht her
14. He recieves recognition by the father-creator
15. He attains his own divination (apotheosis)
16. If the powers are unfriendly, theft of boon he gains [e.g. steal identity]
17. Attains expansion of consciousness and being [e.g. being another person]
18. Some heroes refuse to return to the world [delay, hesitate]
19. With blessing, he sets forth under protection
20. If not, he flees and is pursued (transformation or obstacle flight) [Morrison's Song of Solomon]
21. The world may have to enter to rescue the hero [nurse]
22. When he crosses return threshold, transcendental powers must remain behind
23. Hero re-emerges form kingdom of dread
24. Boon he brings restores the world; elixir.

...this is a breakdown by Joseph Campbell of the most comon events in a great many of the "Hero's Quest" stories through out the known world. It's interesting to apply it to Lord of the Rings, the works of Homer (No, the Greek, not the Simpson! Doh!!) or any other major epic or hero tale you wish to try it out on.

for more, see following...

http://www.jcf.org/

[Ancalagon]

One of the dangers of living in a culture that was built on Christian values, is that we can begin to imagine that those Christian values are just "general" values, which everybody shares naturally, whatever religious background, (or otherwise,) they have.

Why only Christian values? Does this statement in itself show a complete disregard and ignorance of any other faith other than your own? Are we so encapsulated in our own world that we fail to recognise the essence of humanity in any but ourselves.

Aztecs thought it fine to rip out tens of thousands of hearts. Other religions teach fatalism

You choose to argue your point regarding Christianity and its dominance in the 'value and ethics' market. Yet you only relate Aztec Religion as your example; even the Spaniards were impressed by the stress the Aztec peoples placed on confession and on moral, as well as ritual purification prior to worship. Evidence points (though circumstantial, for little is known) to a distinct tendency towrds Monothesism in Aztec and Mayan culture.
Human Sacrifice; although abhorrent to us, was acceptable as part of the early-culture in petitioning their God and continuing the vegetation and life-cycle with which they had been blessed. This was not solely the practice of Aztecs, evidence shows that The Israelites also carried out ritual child sacrifice to God.

Yet, Christianity is thankfully devoid of all human sacrifice; it chose to shed blood under the guise of 'holy wars' or 'crusades'. Over the past 2000years, the Rise of Christianity meant the demise of many faiths, communities, cultures as it ever drove to make its mark on humankind. Believe in the bible, the truth of Our God or die! Is this our Human Sacrifice to our God; that we deliver the 'one true message' to the unbeliever by whatever means necessary.

Look back into our history and you will see that the struggle for religious dominance was nothing more than the struggle for 'politics and power', all in the name of the One True God!

I, from knowing the History of my own country and the religious struggles within, am fairly confident that 'christian values' are as of little worth now as they were when Cromwell brought his version of Christianity to our shores. Don't get me started on where the Pope's allegiances lay when this was going on.

[Orcrist]

Why make Catholicism synonymous with Christianity? The catholic faith does not speak for or represent all Christianity.

[Ancalagon]

Because it's all relative!

[Orcrist]

But it is not "all relative" in your arguement about ,political alliances of the pope, inquisitions, and struggles of politics and power. You refer to a denomination that not all Christians are affiliated with in name, belief, or doctrine.

[Odo Proudfoot]

Hi,

I have just registered to this Forum and look forward to some good dicussions!

On the topic of this thread, I have a hard time seeing any close parallels between LotR and Christianity. Yes, LotR is a spiritual tale, and yes, it is a moral tale. But that in itself doesn't make it a Christian tale!

Let's review the tenets of Christianity:

- the first two humans disobeyed a command of God;
- humans became mortal because of this, and...
- ...all humans have a sinful nature because of this;
- God send his son to die for the sins of man;
- Those who believe in him will have eternal life...
- ...but those that don't will go to Hell.

In all honesty, I see nothing at all of this in Tolkiens work.

Tolkiens world is polytheistic, his humans never were immortal (I think...please correct me if I'm wrong), the concept of Original Sin is completely absent, there is no Son of God, and none of the Gods, or call them Spirits, in Tolkiens world demand to be believed in and to be worshipped on penalty of eternal torment.

I do understand those that recognise and appreciate the moral concept in his books, and indeed many elements of that concept are also present in the Christian belief system. However, to say that Morality equates to Christianity is a statement that I find very hard to support.

fG

[Ancalagon]

Relevance may only be found in the fact that Tolkien was a devout catholic. That is my relation to this thread. Though if I am wrong about Tolkiens denomination, then accept my humble apologies.

[Goro Shimura]

Faded Glory--

And Sauron lied to the King, declaring that everlasting life would be his who possessed the Undying Lands, and that the Ban was imposed only to prevent the Kings of Men from surpassing the Valar. 'But the great Kings take what is their right," he said.

At length Ar-Parazon listened to this counsel, for he felt the waning of his days.... Numenor was thrown down and swallowed into the sea, and the Undying Lands were removed for ever from the circles of the world. So ended the glory of Numenor.

-- Appendix A, The Return of the King (page 392 in my book.)



Sauron is a fallen angel (like Satan.) He tempts man to break a divine command from god. The world is cursed as a result of this-- and Man is exiled. Sounds pretty much like Genesis 3 to me.... (Notice how those long life spans get smaller and smaller in Genesis as well and in LOTR....)

[Ancalagon]

Is Numenor the equivalent of Atlantis of which we as a race are only a fallen remnant? Who among the races of earth do the Elves represent in the scale of Gods plan for us all? Are all Maiar and Valar simply Angels in Tolkiens great plan for his creation?

[Odo Proudfoot]

According to my information Tolkien was indeed a Roman-Catholic.

You guys are highlighting those elements that have parallels in the Christian belief, and making more out of it than you should. It is obvious that there also a great many parallels between LotR and the Norse myths - does that make it a pagan story?
Come to think of it, there are also parallels with Buddhism - does that make it a Buddhist story?

It is clear that Tolkien drew on many, many elements from universal myth and legend - including Christianity. I for one simply don't see more than a passing resemblance between some episodes in the history of Tolkiens world and the Bible. By trying to force his entire work into a Christian framework you are ignoring the many other connections, and in the end robbing the story of much of its richness.

But then, if it makes you happy, who am I to stop you?

fG

[Ancalagon]

I always like people who post to elaborate on who 'you guys' are! It helps me keep my own arguements in perspective.

[ReadWryt]

Midgarðr is the realm of Man and is thought of lying in the center of the Nine Worlds. It is surrounded by a vast ocean and about it lies a wall built by the gods to protect it. Several variants of the name survive, amongst them Middenerd and Tolkien's Middle-Earth.

Svartálfheimr/*Sweartælfham

Svartálfheimr is the home of the Svartálfar, the black elves. Their identity is unclear though a few believe them the same as the Dokkálfar or "dark elves." Still others hold they are the dwarves of Norse mythology. It is thought of as a subterranean region and folk tales suggest it can be accessed through caves in Midgarðr.


http://ealdriht.org/cosmo1.html


Alfheim is the third realm in the world of Asgard. It is the dwelling place of the light elves, who have a close relationship with the gods. http://www.dickinson.edu/~eddyb/mythology/Cosmography2.html

Other regions that are in the world of Midgard include Nidavellir, the land of the dwarfs. Svartalfheim is the land of the dark or evil elves, and Jotunheim the realm of the giants. It lies in the eastern regions of Midgard, with a giant citadel named Utgard http://www.dickinson.edu/~eddyb/mythology/Cosmography3.html

So much of Middle-earth is derived from Anglo-saxon and Germanic/"Norse" mythology that one wonders where all this attempt to co-opt Middle-earth for Christianity comes from?

[Bryheinnen]

where this "attempt to co-opt LOTR for Chrisitianity" comes from.

It comes from Tolkien himself.

Let me start off by saying that it is, of course, perfectly fine if Buddhists, Moslems, Wiccans, Agnostics, Hindus, Secular Humanists, Moonies, Atheists, Shintoists, followers of Santeria, etc., etc., ad infinitum read and love The Lord of the Rings as much as I do.

However, lets here once and for all dispel this nonsense---for that is what it is---that Ancalagon and some others on this board are promulgating, that LOTR is not a religious book. To the contrary, it is a specifically Christian in essence, even if not in overt content.

Quoting Tolkien himself, in a letter to Father Robert Murray, a Jesuit Priest:

“The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like ‘religion,’ to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism.”

Nor does it do, as the quote above clearly states, that what spirituality (as opposed to religion) is overt in LOTR can be attributed to Tolkien’s desire to make a religious statement that is inclusive of other faiths. He did not intend to do so. I think in that respect he would agree with Santayana:

“To attempt to be religious without practicing a specific religion is as possible as attempting to speak without practicing a specific language.”

There is a regrettable tendency in our world today---especially in the halls of academe--- to confuse lack of solid values with tolerance. It is, of course, nothing of the kind. But this wrong-headed conceit is widespread, and is reflected on petulant and aggrieved-sounding rantings (such as Ancalagon) against the evils and exclusiveness of specific religions (Christianity in particular) and the sins of Western Civilization and to champion moral relativism. It is quite chic, especially on campus, to do so. In America the refugees from the wacko sixties have found sinecures amid the hallowed halls, and use their bully pulpits, unaccountable to no-one, to fill student’s heads full of such ****.

Of course, they have devised defenses against clear statements of moral absolutism such as can be found in LOTR. One of these is the idiocy of Deconstructionism (Derrida, Fish, and other such puerile, intellectually undisciplined hacks) one tenet of which is that what the author intended in his or her worth is unimportant, only what the reader takes away from it has any meaning. Thus LOTR can be interpreted, as some on this board have evidently done, to justify their narcissism and moral vacuity.

Fortunately, the sad events of 9-11 have had an impact, a silver lining. Even the dimmest and most intellectually malleable of students on campus today recoil from professors who say idiotic things like (and I paraphrase) “anyone who can bomb the Pentagon has my congratulations!” It will take awhile, but the unchallenged reign of such as these will now almost certainly wane.

In LOTR, Tolkien made an unambiguous if diffuse statement of his religious faith. You can “interpret” it as something other if you wish, but to do so reeks of intellectual dishonesty.

[Bryheinnen]

more on my above post can be found in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, written by Tom Heinen.

[Kathryn]

While "nominal" Christians have probably been the worst offenders of Biblical truth, here is one worth sharing. A truly devout Christian, although still capable of sinning and falling short, is influenced in everything he/she says and does by those Biblical truths. True, Tolkien perhaps did not set out to write an allegory, but he was influenced, may I say even inspired, in his portrayal of the battle between good and evil by his faith. His depiction of the characters: the truth and honesty found in all the fellowship, the theme of justice, the pure love of Arwen and Aragorn, of all the fellowship for each other, the loveliness of the elves and their habitats, the loveliness of the Shire, the good account each "hero" could give of himself, the virtue exemplified by the elves and the fellowship, even the virtue in the Shire and the habitat of the elves, the loveliness, purity and nobillity of each characters and the story itself -- these are simply the fruits of the spirit as laid out in Phillippians chapter 4.

The temptation and redemption of Boromir is a constant theme found in the Bible, the pity Gandolf and later Frodo felt for Smeagol -- Tolkien perhaps did not "design" the book as an allegory but his faith leaps out from every page.

[Odo Proudfoot]

If pure love makes a story Christian, then Romeo and Juliet is a Christian story.

If temptation and redemption makes a story Christian, then Crime and Punishment is a Christian story.

If good vs. bad makes a story Christian, then Batman is a Christian story!

As a non-Christian I have no problem at all relating to the moral elements in Tolkiens tale. However, some here are stretching the definition of 'Christian' to cover a multitude of universal human themes, in themselves unrelated to any particular religion. I find it actually quite insulting for anyone to claim that those themes are the sole property of Christianity!

To go back to my earlier post, when it comes to the essential defining elements of Christianity, those things that set the Christian belief apart from any other human belief, none of them appear in LotR.

fG

[Bryheinnen]

Tolkien HIMSELF has bluntly stated (see above) that it was his intention to make LOTR not only a Christian, but specifically a Catholic work. (Can you read?)

Now you can be as insulted as you want, and you can ignore the intent of the author and pretend it isn't there to suit your own ends if you wish.

However, at least have the integrity to admit that while comfortable and amenable to you personally, in light of the author's CLEARLY STATED INTENT, that amounts to intellectual dishonesty.

To people possessed of intellectual integrity, your stance amounts to misappropriation of Tolkien's artistic property---hardly in line with the theme of universal non-sectarian morality you seem to think the book reflects.

[ReadWryt]

Bryheinnen,

Please, by all means, continue...finish the quote.

"However, that is very clumsily put, and sounds more self-important then I feel. As a matter of fact, I have consciously planned very little; and should chiefly be gratefull to have been brought up (since the age of eight) in a Faith that has nourished me and taught me all the little that I know; and that I owe my mother, who clung to her conversion and died young, largely through the hardships of poverty resulting from it."
From a letter to Robert Murray, S.J. (Grandson of Sir James Murray, founder of the Oxford English Dictionary) dated December 2nd 1953 (#147 in The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien)

To only quote the begining of the statement makes it sound as if there had been overt design, yet as we see from the rest of Tolkien's statement there really was not much planning at all, which is not at all counter to the statements that I have been making all along. Look all you want for God in The Lord of the Rings, but don't delude yourself into thinking that it was by design.

The Forward to the Second Edition of The Lord of the Rings, first published in 1965 by Houghton Mifflin Co. stated

...As for any inner meaning or 'message,' it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical. As the story grew it put down roots (into the past) and threw out unexpected branches: but its main theme was setled from the outset by the inevitable choice of the Ring as the link between it and The Hobbit...

Other arrangements could be devised acccording to the tastes or views of those who like allegory or topical refernce. But I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of the readers. I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.

Somewhere in between there, in a 1955 letter written to Houghton Mifflin Co. he wrote

It is not `about' anything but itself. Certainly it has no alegorical intentions, general, particular, or topical, moral, religious, or political. The only criticism that annoyed me was one that it `contained no religion' (and `no Women', but that does not matter, and is not true anyway). It is a monotheistic world of `natural theology'. # 165 in The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien

As for "solid values" and the constant reference to them, intentionally or not, in this thread as being "Christian" in nature, and that Tolkien created characters that embodied them, I give you this interesting quote from letter # 183...

"Some critics seem determined to represent me as a simple-minded adolescent, inspired with, say, a With-the-flag-to-Pretoria spirit, and it does not appear in the story. The figure of Denethor alone is enough to show this; but I have not made any of hte peoples in the `right' side, Hobbits, rohirrim, Men of Dale or of Gondor, any better then men have been or are, or can be. Mine is not an `imaginary' world, but an imaginary historical moment on `Middle-earth' - which is our habitation."

This would imply that there was no conscious effort not only in any "God" you find in the story, but indeed in any "Godly Action" or "Godly Nature" in the characters. Truth to be told, if there ARE cut and dried inspirations for the characterizations in the stories then one really need not look much further then Professor Tolkien's love of Language. The Conscious design of the Elves was based upon the Language that he had created from borrowed Welsh and Finnish. It's delecate and euphonious phonemic structure and strength in grammar are great metaphor for the Elves themselves, just as the gutteral and harsh structured Black Speech spoken by the Uruks can, by it's very sound, tell you which side of the Good/Evil line they probably reside on.

I am left suspecting that Tolkien began to think that he could tell his friend the Priest that he had meant for his story to be "Catholic", admitted that he had not planned it to be so, then as the years went on he denied it more and more fervently in his letters and in the forward of the Second Edition. I reiterate, Find all the God you care to in The Lord of the Rings, just don't think that, like some literary Easter Bunny, Tolkien skipped through the pages hiding "eggs" of "Christianity" about for you to find...

[Orin]

For what it's worth, Tolkien may not have set out with the intention of writing an allegory, but each reader sees in it what he will. Biblical Allegory? Yes. Tolkien was a devout Christian. It would show, however unintentionally, in his writing. An Allegory for WWI? Yes. Tolkien was a veteren of the First Party. An allegory for WWII? Yes. He wrote during the Second Party. Allegory of Socialism? Yes. An Allegory of the evils of Technology? Yes. An Allegory of the French Revolution? Yes. An allegory of duck hunting in Wisconsin? Yes. you get the point, I hope. Readers are what make the books live, not the author. Readers bring to and take from the books based on their life experiences, beliefs, and values. Spelling is Arbitraree! Frodo Drools!

[Goro Shimura]

There is a system of values that infuses the LOTR that is quite different from Rowlings' Harry Potter books.

Notice how the fate of the world hinges on Bilbo, Aragorn, Gandalf, the wood elves, Faramir, Frodo, and Sam all sparing the life of a completely corrupt and dangerous creature that deserves death. Mercy, self control, self sacrifice, and self restraint are the virtues that ultimately overcome Sauron. Evil can only be overcome with good in LOTR. (Gandalf explains this to Saruman in no uncertain terms in the "Saruman of many Colors" scene.) This is a profoundly Christian notion and it is built into nearly every turn of the plot.

The primary virtue lifted up in the Harry Potter series is a willingness to "break the rules." The idea of sin only surfaces in the context of discrimination against half-giants, werewolves, and "muggle-borns." Old fashioned ideas about not lying, not cheating, not losing your temper, not trying to murder people, obeying your parents/teachers, etc. are flaunted. It's all quite fun, of course, but the message of Harry Potter is that as long as you're trying to defeat Voldemort, it's okay to "bend the rules" a bit. (Okay... a *lot*! Where's my Marauder's Map....)

Two very different views of the moral framework of reality: one resonates with some primary Christian values... the other doesn't.

This is no allegory or "easter egg." These are assertions about the nature of reality-- both of the good and the evil.

[Ancalagon]

There is undoubtedly some conflict within the Author himself in relation to his own interpretation of his own work; for while he dislikes allegory, he also envisages his own belief system within his work. Why is this? He views his own work through the Christian eyes he himself professes, yet, this work is so clearly wrought is the 'building blocks' of every mainstream faith. If you read Mahabharata from which the Hindu faith stems, you would be able to pinpoint comparisons. Though his understandings of his own faith may be apparent, they are neither religious nor do they relate to 'his one god' for the simple fact they are relative to many of the great faiths of the world.

I do not see religion in this work, though I do see morality and sacrifice, I do not find God in this work, though I do see spiritual nourishment.

That is my view, though I respect the view of all others.

It is not `about' anything but itself. Certainly it has no alegorical intentions, general, particular, or topical, moral, religious, or political. The only criticism that annoyed me was one that it `contained no religion' (and `no Women', but that does not matter, and is not true anyway). It is a monotheistic world of `natural theology'.

Thanks RW, this is the quote I was looking for. This I believe some degree of conflict within the Authors intention. This is where I notice some discord, which is not unheard of or unexpected;

“The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like ‘religion,’ to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism.”

Remember the question of the thread; God in the LOTRs? and I believe that if you find it, it is there; though religion in the true meaning of the word; is certainly not.

[Ancalagon]

Tolkien HIMSELF has bluntly stated (see above) that it was his intention to make LOTR not only a Christian, but specifically a Catholic work. (Can you read?)

Bryheinnen; This is a debate whereby all participants are invited to view their opinion. 'CAN YOU READ', is certainly uncalled for when all are simply trying to project their own feelings on the subject. Kindly refrain from using derogatory terms towards the members who have offered an opinion; of which yours is very much accepted and appreciated.

[Goro Shimura]

Ancalgon--

When we read the Silmarillion... we do find that Middle-Earth is created by a single God. And that Creation at the beginning was good. This view is Judeo-Christian, though there may be some other religions that agree.

There is a strong element of prophecy being fulfilled in LOTR that strikes me as very biblical as well-- such as the prophecy of the return of the Dwarves to Lonely mountain, the dream of Faramir, and the prophecy of the death of the Witchking of Angmar.

God does stay in the background of the story, but he is there nonetheless. Bilbo and Frodo were *meant* to find a ring in a way that has more to do with Judeo-Christian providence than Greco-Roman fate.

And then then there's the bit about Gandalf being resurrected and sent back from heaven to continue the fight. (He is a sort of angel in human form with human limitations it seems.) And I believe the elves are sailing to heaven (like Elijah and Enoch.)

Tolkien does borrow from many traditions, but I believe it's fair to say that the Christian views are dominant in the overall moral and historical framework. I do admit that the history cannot be completely reconciled with biblical history which allows for only about 6000 years or so since creation. (The 3 ages of ME would take place a long time before that....) So, though it's not a perfect fit, it's closer than most anything else.

[Bryheinnen]

but it is simply NOT POSSIBLE to read this line, however footnoted afterward as faded_Glory does, and conclude that Tolkien intended it to be anything OTHER than a Christian, and even more specifically, a Catholic (which I am not, by the way) work. To do so is either disingenuous or downright dishonest.

“The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision."

I have been accused of trying to appropriate LOTR exclusively for Christians. Not so. If anything, TOLKIEN did that, though I doubt he would have rejected other readership.

But to the contrary, it seems to me that there are too many people on this board all too eager to deny the focus and intent of the author, and to self-indulgently (and it seems to me, dishonestly) twist the meaning of LOTR to suit their OWN preconceptions and prejudices, many of which are blatantly ANTI-Christian (how is it that people who attack Christians are never called on the carpet for intolerence? I guess under the code of political correctness only Christians and the Taliban can be charged with that...sarcasm DEFINITELY intended...)

Unless, as I stated before, one is intellectually narcissistic, vapid, and/or lazy enough to buy the deconstructionist/postmodernist fecal material that the intent of the author is irrelevant, and only the perceptions of the reader have validity (with the corrollary that all perceptions are thus equally valid) the view that Tolkien's intent doesn't matter is ignorant, dishonest, or both.

That I wiil not retract, because it too obvious for legitimate argument, or should be, to people with a few functioning brain cells.

[LadyEowyn]

Test-

[proudfoot]

Originally posted by faded_Glory

Let's review the tenets of Christianity:

- the first two humans disobeyed a command of God;
- humans became mortal because of this, and...
- ...all humans have a sinful nature because of this;
- God send his son to die for the sins of man;
- Those who believe in him will have eternal life...
- ...but those that don't will go to Hell.

In all honesty, I see nothing at all of this in Tolkiens work.

Tolkiens world is polytheistic, his humans never were immortal (I think...please correct me if I'm wrong), the concept of Original Sin is completely absent, there is no Son of God, and none of the Gods, or call them Spirits, in Tolkiens world demand to be believed in and to be worshipped on penalty of eternal torment.

I do understand those that recognise and appreciate the moral concept in his books, and indeed many elements of that concept are also present in the Christian belief system. However, to say that Morality equates to Christianity is a statement that I find very hard to support.

fG

I think that your definition of Christianity leaves out a large part, if not the main part, of the Christian message. Christ brought some revolutionary teachings into the world, which we may be too used to hearing, to realise how revolutionary and how different they are:

Love your enemy. Be merciful. Pay back good for evil.
Sacrifice yourself for others.
Treat others as you would like them to treat you.
The meek, (not the proud and the mighty) shall inherit the earth.
Ordinary individuals can alter the world for good or ill.

Tolkiens work definately includes much of this:

Originally posted by Goroshimura


Notice how the fate of the world hinges on Bilbo, Aragorn, Gandalf, the wood elves, Faramir, Frodo, and Sam all sparing the life of a completely corrupt and dangerous creature that deserves death. Mercy, self control, self sacrifice, and self restraint are the virtues that ultimately overcome Sauron. Evil can only be overcome with good in LOTR. (Gandalf explains this to Saruman in no uncertain terms in the "Saruman of many Colours" scene.) This is a profoundly Christian notion and it is built into nearly every turn of the plot.



Yet while most posters here will admit that there is a "moral element" in the books of Tolkien, a number refuse to admit that that moral element is Christian, any more than Pagan or Buddhist, Hinu, Shinto or Muslim.

Yes. Tolkien used a pagan background for his world. If he was to create a realistic world of Northern mythology, he had to do this. But if you read historic pagan mythology, you will not find in it the deeper moral concepts you find in Tolkien. Pagan epics like the Ring Cycle contains heroes, but these heroes are proud warriors, motivated by tribal honour, power and revenge, who deal ruthlessly with their enemies, and use any method they can to gain their ends. You will find similar heroes in the legends of many non-Christian religions.

The Heroes of LOTR are very different, and based on Christian models. They are motivated by concern for others, their own interests being incidental.

Moral relativism - saying all religions hold basically the same values - is simply untrue. Religion makes an enormous difference to culture. Just compare life in Italy with life in Algeria. Christianity, alone of the major religions has created a culture where we expect justice, we expect equal treatment, and we expect to see those without power treated with compassion and tolerance. Tolkiens characters fight for these same goals. If they didn't, Tolkien would probably be read by the same number of people who read right through the original Viking sagas.

[jcharlesberry]

If you are looking for the story of Christ like you have laid out here:

- the first two humans disobeyed a command of God;
- humans became mortal because of this, and...
- ...all humans have a sinful nature because of this;
- God send his son to die for the sins of man;
- Those who believe in him will have eternal life...
- ...but those that don't will go to Hell.

in allegory it ain't there. Again Tolkien found no way to express the perfection and story of Christ in fiction. The stories are not about Christ but about Christians, if you will. The pure-hearted and the true make the journey to Mt. Doom and put to death their flesh as the Christian is to do. These are the deeper tenets of the Christian walk, not the story of Christ or the initial decision for Christ - though disturbing a perfectly peaceful life in the shire for a journey is very much like Hannah Hunard's Hind's feet on high places journey or John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress. These are deeper truths. Blessed are the pure in heart for though they won't have the peace of the shire they shall have the peace of knowing they are doing the right thing and they shall see God.

[ReadWryt]

I refuse to let this quote get taken out of context any longer, so here it is in it's complete form as taken from a letter to Robert Murray, S.J. (Grandson of Sir James Murray, founder of the Oxford English Dictionary) dated December 2nd 1953 (#142 in The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien)

“The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like ‘religion,’ to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism. However, that is very clumsily put, and sounds more self-important then I feel. As a matter of fact, I have consciously planned very little; and should chiefly be gratefull to have been brought up (since the age of eight) in a Faith that has nourished me and taught me all the little that I know; and that I owe my mother, who clung to her conversion and died young, largely through the hardships of poverty resulting from it."

What does this mean, this "I have consciously planned very little"? What could Tolkien have meant in this context when he states that by saying that this was consciously a fundimentally religious and Catholic work in the revision, but that what he had just said was clumsily put and sounds more self important then he felt? It seems to me that he was saying that perhaps he indeed had not so much done it consciously...perhaps, and this is speculation, but just maybe he was trying to, dare I say it?, Please the Minister by claiming that it was a Christian work?? When taken in the context that this was a letter in response to the Priest's comments that the book had left him "with a strong compatability with the order of Grace, and compared the image of Galadriel to that of the Virgin Mary." , one can see that, so kindly an old guy as J.R.R. might not have wanted to tell a man of the cloth "No, you are wrong, I HATE allegory, as I will repeatedly state over then next decade and a half after telling you otherwise."

That last was not fair at all, and I am being sarcastic in phrasing it that way, but in fact I think that YOU would take offence should someone stop short of so important a point when quoting YOU...

Goroshimura,

Are you going to make me drag out all of the OTHER monotheistic faiths that believed that the universe was created "good"? Hehehehe I don't think I would care to do that much typing. It seems that it's not so much that Christianity is trying to co-opt The Lord of the Rings, but in actuality they are trying to claim exclusivity on anything that has hard deliniation of Good and Evil, is Monotheistic or involves Purity of Heart. If I claim to have found Odin in the Lord of the Rings for all the same reasons, would I in fact be wrong?

http://www.mythinglinks.org/ct~creation.html

[Bryheinnen]

Your post is just a prime example of how far non-Christians will go to try to (as they see it) "rescue" LOTR from us evil, narrow-minded Christians.

Ib your case, now we are speculating (and pretty wildly, it seems to me---desperation?) about how Tolkien "may have" written what he said in this letter for the sake of sucking up to the priest.

As I said before, the first part of this quote seems to me to be beyond ANY ambiguity, and the second part being added does not diminish that lack of ambiguity to any great degree, if at all.

So you and the other Christ-haters/deniers on this board who want to be able to dismiss Tolkien's intent so that you can be comfortable with the book on your OWN terms can, of course, continue to do that, and rationalize as you have done here to do so.

But I think it is clear that amounts to, on the one hand, either a high level of rationalization unwarranted by the evidence, or on the other, downright dishonesty.

[ReadWryt]

Bryheinnen,

I take your insult to heart, and insist that if you are going to make wild and unfounded accusations that you keep them out of the forum and simply send me private messages with your slanderous remarks. I also would appreciate you showing me where, at any time, anywhere in this entire forum, I said anything that maligned, denegrated, insulted or otherwise displayed a "hatred" for Christ, Christianity or Christians.

If dishonesty is being practiced here it is by anyone who would presume to know what I feel in my heart for Christ when all I have done is attempt to defend my position, by matching quotes from the author at a 4 to one ratio, that he did not, with intent and purpose, insert his or any other established diety or faith into his book. I fail to see why you felt the need to accuse me of something that I have not given you any evidence of, and by throwing about venomous slander you show your nature, and the motive and agenda, which belies your fervent arguments. You apparently have a problem that extends beyond the purposefull insertion of Christianity by the Author into his story which spills over to some misguided delusion that the "Anti-Christians" are out to get you.

[Goro Shimura]

ReadWryt--

I'm not suggesting that LOTR is on the same level as Pilgrim's Progress... but I am saying that there's a great deal of Christian moral values in it that we do not see in other fiction.

Can you agree to any of the following:

1) Tolkien's Morality has more in common with Judeo-Christian views than it does with Eastern religions, Hinduism, the Muslim faith, or other Pagan religions.

2) There are a great deal more of Judeo-Christian elements in LOTR than Harry Potter, Piers Anthony books, or the typical Dungeons and Dragons type novel.

3) Although Tolkien creates a Pantheon of "gods" in the Silmarillian... they are much more in submission to the creator for the most part, and much more well behaved than their Greco-Roman counterparts. (They are more like implementors of God's will than a crowd of bickering soap opera stars.)


PS I'd rather you respond to proudfoot's post than fuss with Bryheinnen.

PPS Yes... please enlighten me about "all those other monotheistic faiths" that believe in a good creator god, a good creation, and that explain evil as resulting from some sort of "fall" caused by disobedience. Don't name them all... 5 or 6 would suffice. (Of course, if we define good in terms of Judeo-Christian moral values....)

[jcharlesberry]

Just real quick ReadWryt, the only monotheistic religions are Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. There was a report of Akhenatan of Egypt trying to set up a monotheistic religion but he was run out.

[Odo Proudfoot]

Proudfoot,

You wrote

I think that your definition of Christianity leaves out a large part, if not the main part, of the Christian message. Christ brought some revolutionary teachings into the world, which we may be too used to hearing, to realise how revolutionary and how different they are:

Love your enemy. Be merciful. Pay back good for evil.
Sacrifice yourself for others.
Treat others as you would like them to treat you.
The meek, (not the proud and the mighty) shall inherit the earth.
Ordinary individuals can alter the world for good or ill.

Tolkiens work definately includes much of this:


I certainly agree with you that the themes you mention figure prominently in LotR, and indeed can be said to form the main moral message of the works. I have also no beef with the suggestion that Tolkien arrived at this morality in part through his faith, which was indeed Christian, Roman Catholic to be exact.

What I don't particularly agree with, but I will also readily admit that this probably goes beyond the bounds of this particular Forum, is the notion that these ideas are in any way unique to Christianity, or indeed originated with Christianity. Many of these moral concepts predate Christianity by a considerable timespan, and can for instance be found in the teachings of the Buddha, the Tao and Confucius. This is why I object to the appropriation of Tolkiens morality by some of the more vocal Christians here. I guess the bottom line is that we should be grateful that all of us here do recognise these moral choices as the right ones, and (at least profess to) upkeep them as our own, regardless of our religious orientation (or lack of such).

regards,

fG

[Odo Proudfoot]

Bryheinnen,

You wrote:

But to the contrary, it seems to me that there are too many people on this board all too eager to deny the focus and intent of the author, and to self-indulgently (and it seems to me, dishonestly) twist the meaning of LOTR to suit their OWN preconceptions and prejudices, many of which are blatantly ANTI-Christian (how is it that people who attack Christians are never called on the carpet for intolerence? I guess under the code of political correctness only Christians and the Taliban can be charged with that...sarcasm DEFINITELY intended...)

Unless, as I stated before, one is intellectually narcissistic, vapid, and/or lazy enough to buy the deconstructionist/postmodernist fecal material that the intent of the author is irrelevant, and only the perceptions of the reader have validity (with the corrollary that all perceptions are thus equally valid) the view that Tolkien's intent doesn't matter is ignorant, dishonest, or both.

That I wiil not retract, because it too obvious for legitimate argument, or should be, to people with a few functioning brain cells.


I find it interesting to see the Christian beliefs defended from a perceived attack in a manner that to me seems to go full-force against the teachings of the religion's founder himself.

It would help if in the future you could refrain from ascribing opinions and intents to people you know nothing about.

Having said that, in view of the aggressive and insulting nature of your posts I feel no further desire to debate these matters with you.

fG

[Bryheinnen]

You argument CLEARLY has NO MERIT.

So be it.

[Ancalagon]

But to the contrary, it seems to me that there are too many people on this board all too eager to deny the focus and intent of the author, and to self-indulgently (and it seems to me, dishonestly) twist the meaning of LOTR to suit their OWN preconceptions and prejudices, many of which are blatantly ANTI-Christian (how is it that people who attack Christians are never called on the carpet for intolerence?


So you and the other Christ-haters/deniers on this board who want to be able to dismiss Tolkien's intent so that you can be comfortable with the book on your OWN terms can, of course, continue to do that, and rationalize as you have done here to do so.

I find the venom in these remarks rather disturbing considering I am a Christian myself. Though obviously in your eyes I am not the right sort of Christian because I don't look with your eyes.

I am a Christ-Hater? Much the opposite my friend; however, I am open-minded, accepting of that which is alien to me and very much critical of my own 'religion', for religion has been a burden on my society since Henry VIII decided he wanted another wife.

I do not deny Tolkiens Christian influences have helped shape certain aspects of his work. It would not be impossible for some influence or understanding of his own faith or belief to find some relation to his writing. However, I do not view his work as Christian, religious text or parable. In answer to the question on this thread; even as a Christian, I do not see or feel God or religion speak to me in this book.

Should I be beaten, purged, made to wear sackcloth and stoned?

[ReadWryt]

If there are two things that studying Joseph Campbell has taught me it's that there is respect and sanctity due a given Faith and the perveyors of it, and that mythologies and Faiths most often contain the limited ability of Man to describe what they are attempting to understand in their verbage and imagery because when mankind attempts to throw Human sized Calipers on a Supernatural being he constantly falls short of a fully satisfying result.

Often people try to explain, without the tools (Verbage, concepts, understanding) to completely describe with accuracy the supernatural being(s) or events that they try to relate.

This explains many things in several of the Faiths that are accepted as metaphorical in nature. I think that we could all be in agreement that ancient men saw certain events that were inexplicable to them in anything but the terms they were given and even smiled at the simplicity behind their belief that the world was carried on the back of a tortoise or that a great dragon had performed some nefarious deed.

Understanding the frame of reference of the observer, one can forgive certain limitations on their part to be able to adequately describe what they have seen or experienced without reverting to terminology that they know best. I am reminded of the story "Flatland" in which the hero of the story, Mr. A.Square, a citizen of a two dimentional realm, first sees the character of the Sphere.

My Wife as well as myself heard the words, although she did not understand their meaning, and both of us sprang forward in the direction of the sound. What was our horror when we saw before us a Figure! At the first glance it appeared to be a Woman, seen sideways; but a moment's observation shewed me that the extremities passed into dimness too rapidly to represent one of the Female Sex; and I should have thought it a Circle, only that it seemed to change its size in a manner impossible for a Circle or for any regular Figure of which I had had experience.

Indeed were an individual who had only length and breadth with which to measure their world would have observed the 3 dimentional sphere as it intersected their world as being a mysterious circle which could change it's diameter at will, he had no other frame of reference to ascertain otherwise!

This is, I believe, indicative of the nature of Tolkien's insistence that Maiar and other beings in Middle-earth were indeed "Angelic Beings". Note, I said "I Believe", for far be it for me to stand toe to toe with the Professor and tell him he is wrong about the nature of beings of his own creation, but certainly if one had no other means of describing these beings, no other beings of supernatural nature that they could compare, you can see where this could be possible.

I am searching currently for any of the Professor's writing on the Kavelala for this reason. The Finnish had nothing like Angels an had not a word that even sounded much like that, but should I find in a scholarly text on this ancient Finnish epic that Tolkien describes any characters as being "Angelic Creatures", should I take it for granted that he thought of them as Angels? Just a musing...

[Snaga]

As someone whose heritage is both Jewish and Christian I think I object to the notion that of LotR drawing from 'Judeo-Christian morals'. Judaism and Christianity are distinct in their teachings, even if they have the old testament in common. I am slightly bemused that the teachings of Christ mean so little to quite forthright Christians contributing, that the new testament can be so readily overlooked! The exam question here is: 'Revenge is morally wrong, discuss with reference to the Judeo-Christian tradition.' By the way then ask, was Aragorn was motivated by revenge?

Yet more amusing is that there is something intellectually lazy about the post-modernist view that readers view is what is important (to the reader - of course). Those of you that believe this is a lazy point of view to read, say, the writing of Derrida or Baudrillard, and should you do so and understand it, describe why its lazy. I find decrying in such dismissive terms a major philosophical development, well, lazy !

I can tell that it is terribly important to some to set up a line of reasoning that says 'ah you find LotR inspiring... then you should be a Christian'. It is clear to me that this not a key message of Tolkiens work. For sure you can see moral values in his work that are drawn from Christianity. I object neither to their presence in the book nor this being pointed out. Because actually most of us who are not Christians are far less in disagreement with content of these morals, than the insistence that you have to embrace the notion of supernatural beings into the bargain.

Now you are entitled to be as argumentative as you like in putting your case that these values were put there with intent. Even if you could win your argument with Read-Wryt and frame a position that said: 'Ah you find LotR inspiring... that is because you are inspired by its message, which Tolkien intended to be a Christian message, so you should be a Christian' let me assure you this does you no good. Because to that I reply, 'But God does not exist, and so I may just as well give praise to Elbereth'.;)

Do you get it? The readers view IS crucial. I don't believe in God so I don't see God's message in it. You can show me it, because it has meaning to you, but for me its like the trying to use the ring to exert power over Bombadil. I am not writing this because I want to try and devalue your beliefs. No, I want to see a sense of proportion about what is at stake here, in the hope that it might moderate some of the language being used.

This is the hour of Shire-folk, when they arise from their quiet fields to shake the towers and the counsels of the Great. And who of the Wise could have forseen it? Or, if they are wise, why should they expect to know it, until the hour is struck?

That is what I take from LotR as the passage that speaks to me. And contrary to Proudfoot, I don't recall this as a Christian message (but I'll take a quote from the bible as correction). But I won't tell anyone that is what they must also believe.

[Goro Shimura]

“For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.” 1 Corinthians 1:19

(Translation to LOTR: the wisdom and prudence of Saruman will come to nothing. It is very prudent to attempt to use evil means to accomplish a good end… but ultimately this path is folly.)

“Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: but God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not to bring to nought things that are: that no flesh should glory in his presence.” 1 Corinthians 1:25-29

(Translation to LOTR: weak and unknown hobbits will be used by God to overcome mighty principalities and powers. They will accomplish that which mighty men, wizards, elf lords, etc. could not do.)

For those that are not partial to Paul, here’s an example Christ himself teaching the same principle:

“At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, and said, Except ye be converted and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 18:1-4

A temptation of the devil is quite similar to the temptation of the ring:

“Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; and saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.” Matthew 4:8-9

(Translation to LOTR: Every major character in the book overcomes a desire to use the ring to possess the kingdoms of the world. The ring itself can stir up this lust in the greatest of heroes—but only the weak and lowly hobbits are resistant enough to its snare to be able to bear the ring into Mordor.)

[Snaga]

Its a fair cop, guvnor!

[Goro Shimura]

Pardon me... but what's a fair cop??

[Snaga]

Sorry Goroshimura - using archaic London slang! This phrase was (supposedly) used by criminals when they'd been caught by the police to mean 'I admit it', (probably to avoid being interrogated too roughly!) In this case I used it to imply that your quotations did indeed prove that Elrond's words had a parallel in the Bible.

Students of the english vernacular can probably find a number of similar expressions such 'You got me banged to rights'... All of these expressions benefit from being spoken in an exaggerated cockney accent c.f. **** Van Dyke in the film 'Mary Poppins'.

[Kathryn]

My opinion is the opposite: I am left suspecting that Tolkien did, as he stated, write the book from a Christian/Catholic perspective, which was acceptable prior to the 50's. Then with the onslaught of "free-thinking," politically correct jibber jabber in the 50's and the domination of Hindu thought and philosophy in the 60's (now the current New Age philosophy) that Tolkien felt compelled as were other writers of his day to downplay the Christian themes and to disaccociate the books from the increasingly unpopular traditional Christianity - ESPECIALLY with his publishers, who were in it more to make a buck than to make a statement and would certainly encourage him to downplay the Christian angle to make it more universally acceptabe and palatable.

I do not think Tolkien "hid eggs" of Christianity throughout the story; I think he breathed his faith throughout the book.

>>> I am left suspecting that Tolkien began to think that he could tell his friend the Priest that he had meant for his story to be "Catholic", admitted that he had not planned it to be so, then as the ye