Religion in Middle Earth?

[Firawyn]

I was thinking today about how all of 'our' countries and people groups have their own religions that dictate to them the moral standards by which to live.

What examples of this to we see in Middle Earth, not only in reference to their own God figures (Eru, for example), but also in comparison to our own religions.

For instance, who (what characters) are living by the religious standards that Tolkien had (Catholic/Christian)?

I've thought a bit about this and had the notion it might make a good discussion topic here on TTF.

:)

[Barliman Butterbur]

I was thinking today about how all of 'our' countries and people groups have their own religions that dictate to them the moral standards by which to live.

What examples of this to we see in Middle Earth, not only in reference to their own God figures (Eru, for example), but also in comparison to our own religions.

For instance, who (what characters) are living by the religious standards that Tolkien had (Catholic/Christian)?

I've thought a bit about this and had the notion it might make a good discussion topic here on TTF.

:)

Offhand: There is no formalized religion at the level of elves, men or hobbits. There is the sensibility of right and wrong, cruel and kind, good and bad, honest and dishonest, "demonic" (Mordor, etc.) and "angelic" (Lothlorien, etc). The whole thing functions without a "God" concept. Very Buddhist. I wonder what Tolkien would have thought of that...;)

Barley

PS to Fir: glad to see you've "lightened up" in the sig department! :)

[Firawyn]

Barley, if I didn't know any better, I'd think you were watching my every move (or post, more accurately). ;)


ON TOPIC NOW -

Have you ever seen the movie Timechanger (http://imdb.com/title/tt0295725/)?

In summery - A man from 1890 write a paper about how human beings know good and evil without the God factor at all. Then he is sent into the future where God is no longer that...what's the word...revered. He's shocked by how people act and treat each other with the God factor removed.


So that said - how can the races of Middle Earth, as realistic as they can be, function so honorably and (pardon the pun) godly, when there seems to be no God figure to speak of?

By nature, humans (and dwarves, hobbits, elves, etc) are fallible. How can they realistically be expected to be that good without a moral plum line defined by some form of religion?

[HLGStrider]

I wouldn't exactly call the Vala gods but they serve as holy beings and specific groups revere certain Vala more than others. Eru also is godlike without necessarily being worshipped as godlike, which is interesting.

I think Tolkien said somewhere that he purposefully avoided religion in his writings because he didn't want to try and replace his existing religion or create an allegory for it, which really are the only two choices if you add a religion to the fantasy world: make up a religion (upon which some person somewhere will start practicing it if you reach any level of fame . . . like Jedi knights) or you can do what Lewis did and take an existing religion and make a spiritual point. This point does not have to necessarily build up an existing religion, either. Pullman's work uses a very thinly veiled Catholic/Christian style church and proceeds to bring out the worst in it to turn people off from organized religion.

I have tried to do what Lewis did in my work, as a Christian writer, but I find no one does it as well as him, so generally I do what Tolkien does: provide a sense of right and wrong and an innately good creator but avoid the greater details of religion. Unless I've based it in the real world.

We do see Devil-Worship in the villains and we see people criticized for attempting to hold themselves as gods (Isn't that one theory with the "blue wizards").

But rambling aside, I think it all falls back on Tolkien not wanting to write in a religion.

[chrysophalax]

Seems to me that the different races (not necessarily individuals within said races) act according to oral traditions passed down to them from their forefathers, some of which, in Tolkien's world, actually had dealings with either the Valar, or the Maiar. Of course in LotR we have good and evil represented by Sauron and Gandalf, both of whom had first-hand knowledge of those who pass for god-like beings (both good and evil) on Arda.

As to individuals, in ME as in our own, apparently free will is a factor, not only at the mortal level, but at the Maiar level, thus we have Saruman changing sides as it were, as well the more commonplace characters such as Smeagol and Saeros.

Eru himself seems to be the ultimate orchestrator of everything, but chooses to remain distant for purposes of him own.

[Barliman Butterbur]

All of which brings me to this: It's all about behavior choices. It's all about "like begets like." It's about "You get what you give." It's about "Your freedom ends where my nose begins." It's about cooperation rather than competition; about compassion and kindness, a willingness to help. It's about how well you treat yourself and others.

Barley

[Nóm]

I think the morals in Middle-earth were things that naturally followed from being a good faithful person of hope who has knowledge of God, either indirectly by the Valar or more indirectly - from Vala to Elf to Man. Of course Men who knew better didn't always stay in line. With the loss of hope came evil. Over several generations the Numenoreans went from the most Faithful Men in history to Morgoth-worshipping human-sacrificers.

But as the Fourth Age came on, I would expect that even in the West of Middle-earth Men began to start up religions (and in one fourth age tale, JRRT mentions the existance of 'cults'), many with good intentions. Eventually all real knowledge of God would be lost or mixed with myth.

[Firawyn]

All of which brings me to this: It's all about behavior choices. It's all about "like begets like." It's about "You get what you give." It's about "Your freedom ends where my nose begins." It's about cooperation rather than competition; about compassion and kindness, a willingness to help. It's about how well you treat yourself and others.

Barley

Agreed Barley, but why? Why would they think that killing their neighbors was bad or helping the poor was good?


I'm really trying not to pick a fight with you m'dear.

[Barliman Butterbur]

Why would they think that killing their neighbors was bad or helping the poor was good?

Hmmm. Well — to a reasonably normal person whose life hasn't been too overly stressed or traumatized, whose situation isn't totally desperate, whose spirit hasn't been too badly damaged, it's self-evident that it's better to help than to hurt.

Barley

[HLGStrider]

Not necessarily. If we were just dealing with "live and let live" you could argue that if you give everyone enough of whatever they need they'll just "get along" but as there is always (no matter what system) an unequal division of goods/services/valuables/power you will always encounter at least greed, jealousy, and some corruption and someone is going to realize that occasionally it helps them to hurt some other them, if only a little bit. . . and if there is no reason, no law, then why not? Everyone knew the "King's Laws" were good and followed them just because they were the "King's Laws" but what if there had never been a king?

Even if we assume that people will not hurt other people just because it is mutually beneficial, why would people sacrifice themselves to aid other people if there is no moral law telling them to do it?

Frodo must realize that he, himself, does not benefit from his attempt at the destruction of the ring. He is motivated in no way by self-preservation, and assuming no moral law and no after life there is no reason to do what he is doing. Sure, the world suffers, but if Frodo dies, the world does not exist as far as he is concerned, so for Frodo it really isn't a problem.

People can be asked not to detract from others for the sake of living and let living, but if it comes to detracting from oneself to prevent the difficulties of others, you need a better reason. Frodo obviously had something within him that told him that even if it cost his life, there was a good worth pursuing in the destruction of the Ring.

[Barliman Butterbur]

If we were just dealing with "live and let live" you could argue that if you give everyone enough of whatever they need they'll just "get along" but as there is always (no matter what system) an unequal division of goods/services/valuables/power you will always encounter at least greed, jealousy, and some corruption and someone is going to realize that occasionally it helps them to hurt some other them, if only a little bit. . . and if there is no reason, no law, then why not? Everyone knew the "King's Laws" were good and followed them just because they were the "King's Laws" but what if there had never been a king?

Even if we assume that people will not hurt other people just because it is mutually beneficial, why would people sacrifice themselves to aid other people if there is no moral law telling them to do it?

<snip>

People can be asked not to detract from others for the sake of living and let living, but if it comes to detracting from oneself to prevent the difficulties of others, you need a better reason...

Agreed: people are people and some will do the right thing (including self-sacrifice for the sake of another) and some will do the wrong thing: that's the normal range of human nature and human behavior. And for the negative end of it we need laws; I never said or implied we don't. But laws need not be religiously based. I do not wish to take this discussion further publicly, because (knowing you) I believe it would drift more and more into a discussion of the need for religion and God as enforcements on human thought and behavior (a concept with which I disagree), and that kind of discussion is not allowed.

Barley

[Firawyn]

Hmmm. Well — to a reasonably normal person whose life hasn't been too overly stressed or traumatized, whose situation isn't totally desperate, whose spirit hasn't been too badly damaged, it's self-evident that it's better to help than to hurt.

Barley

But what makes it so self-evident? You're argument is based on you presumption that people a) in general have relatively easy lives, and b) would base a decision on how to treat others on pure logic.

The vast majority of people in the world have been hurt emotionally directly or indirectly. When people have to decide "do I help or hurt?", then often do it without thinking logically, but with hormones, or out of rebound, and many other things.

People can't always see that their actions would hurt someone else, physically, mentally, or emotionally.

Right and wrong, good and bad, are not so "self-evident" as you would think.

[HLGStrider]

It is an interesting discussion, but both sides of it really aren't Tolkien related. We should return to the original question which is the representation of religion within Tolkien's works.

In this world we don't have undeniable proof of the existence of a god let alone an exact model of what that god is like, but in Tolkien we have both. We know that Eru exists. We know basic points about his nature. We know the structure of his world simply because Tolkien told us and Tolkien made the world (in some ways Tolkien is the god of Middle Earth, but he passed the creator baton onto Eru and the Vala.).

Since we know Eru exists, we have to answer other questions.

1. Do the majority of creatures know/acknowledge that he exists?
2. Does Eru not demand any form of worship? Why or why not? Does he approve of any worship? Is there any race that actively worships Eru?
3. Did Eru give a collective conscience to his creations? IE Is there a universal right and wrong acknowledged by all his creations because of him?
4. Are there other (false) gods acknowledged by other races? How do they differ?
5. Does Eru have a plan for his people's afterlives? Do they know this? Is there any "judgment" where some make it and some do not?
6. Do the Dwarves, as not part of the original plan, fall under a different set of rules than the other races?

etc.

[Firawyn]

You're right, of course. Back on topic. I was thinking the same thing anyway.


1. Do the majority of creatures know/acknowledge that he exists?
2. Does Eru not demand any form of worship? Why or why not? Does he approve of any worship? Is there any race that actively worships Eru?
3. Did Eru give a collective conscience to his creations? IE Is there a universal right and wrong acknowledged by all his creations because of him?
4. Are there other (false) gods acknowledged by other races? How do they differ?
5. Does Eru have a plan for his people's afterlives? Do they know this? Is there any "judgment" where some make it and some do not?
6. Do the Dwarves, as not part of the original plan, fall under a different set of rules than the other races?

etc.

1. Know, perhaps. But I've only heard the Elves really acknowledge Eru.

2. I keep thinking about all the Elven songs and how we have our "Praise and Worship Songs". Could there e a connection?

3. That is the premise of the question Barley and I have been grappling over.

4. Souron?

5. The Grey Havens?

6. Well women were created after man, and they follow the same rules as men...most of the time anyway!

[Barliman Butterbur]

But what makes it so self-evident? You're argument is based on you presumption that people a) in general have relatively easy lives, and b) would base a decision on how to treat others on pure logic.

The vast majority of people in the world have been hurt emotionally directly or indirectly. When people have to decide "do I help or hurt?", then often do it without thinking logically, but with hormones, or out of rebound, and many other things.

People can't always see that their actions would hurt someone else, physically, mentally, or emotionally.

Right and wrong, good and bad, are not so "self-evident" as you would think.

You are reading all sorts of things into what I said that aren't there. Take what I say at face value. "...it's self-evident that it's better to help than to hurt." "But what makes it so self-evident?" Which would you rather have, a kiss or a punch in the mouth? That's what I mean by self-evident. And Strider's right: this discussion has no place here.

Barley

[Firawyn]

You are reading all sorts of things into what I said that aren't there. Take what I say at face value. "...it's self-evident that it's better to help than to hurt." "But what makes it so self-evident?" Which would you rather have, a kiss or a punch in the mouth? That's what I mean by self-evident. And Strider's right: this discussion has no place here.

Barley

Okay...face value...back on topic...*grin* Um...about that punch or kiss scenario - it would depend greatly on whom the punch or kiss was coming from. ;)

[HLGStrider]

6. Well women were created after man, and they follow the same rules as men...most of the time anyway!

But women and men were created by the same being. Dwarves were created independently of Eru's will . . . though it was Eru who gave them their free will so you could argue that he did bless their creation and complete it.

[Firawyn]

Would it make an difference to note that God created animals, then man, then woman.

I guess animals don't have to follow the same rules though, so that's probably a mute point.

Thoughts on this Barley?

[Starbrow]

I think it's interesting that when Tolkien specifically mentions a form of religion it tends to be very negative. For example, the Numenoreans who worshiped Melkor, the people cursed by Isildur who worshiped Sauron, and the cults mentioned in the Fourth Age. I can't recall any positive expressions of religion beyond the songs to Elbereth that the Elves sing.
Am I missing anything?

[Barliman Butterbur]

Would it make an difference to note that God created animals, then man, then woman.

I guess animals don't have to follow the same rules though, so that's probably a mute point.

Thoughts on this Barley?

Nope, I'm bowing out of this.

Barley

[Firawyn]

Nope, I'm bowing out of this.

Barley

Well have it your way. Your loss. :p


Well I think that religion on a whole was frowned upon by Tolkien. He didn't like how much conflict the different sects caused. Could this view have been shown in is books?

You know in all my study, I've always heard that Tolkien did not let his works be influenced by his personal views - not on religion, not on the war, not on anything.

But for some reason this bothers me - how could such an intelligent man not put a little of himself into his masterpiece?

[HLGStrider]

He put a lot of himself into it. He put a lot of himself into characters, especially. He put in his dislike for machinery and his love of foods and friendship and coming home again to a comfortable place.

I think he put in his dislike for the war of men against men and what an ugly business it was.

I wouldn't say Tolkien disliked religion. He didn't like sectarianism, but honestly very few religious people like this. It just happens because humans have a very hard time getting along in any situation and religious gatherings are no exception. This is partially why people of nearly all faiths have at one point or another have gone to unfortunate and evil lengths to try and force people to agree with them. We desperately want unity but can't have it.

The guy who invented the qwerty layout must've been left handed. It is so much easier to type left handed only than right handed only . . . holding a baby while doing this.

Tolkien experienced some of this in his own home with his formerly Anglican wife whose conversion was for his sake not hers. Carpenter's bio states that she disliked going to mass and confession and that this was a conflict in their marriage, but it wouldn't have been a conflict if Tolkien hadn't have liked his religion or felt these things were important.

In my marriage there is conflict over the fact that when you marry a Marine they've had it pounded into their head that exercise is very very important and he seriously thinks I'm hurting myself because my idea of exercise is a lazy stroll and some pilates . . . Once a week . . . you don't pressure/nag someone you love to do something like mass or exercise unless you think they are hurting themselves by neglecting it, so we can surmise from Carpenter's account that Tolkien felt religion to be vital in a persons life and something that would be to their detriment not to practice.

[Firawyn]

Well said HLG. Especially with a baby in your arms. :p

[Alcuin]

Barley is out of the thread, which means that this is a really hot topic. (Hi, Barley!) I am merely passing through, so if Dave hits me, I guess I can tolerate the blow…

Tolkien was a deeply religious man. He and Hugo Dyson were the people who led C.S. Lewis to convert to Christianity. Lewis and Tolkien both recorded the event separately, but their stories match; I’d love to provide a citation tonight, but I cannot.

One thing I can cite is Tolkien’s own testimony to his son Michael, who was apparently suffering a crisis of faith, recorded in Letter 250, dated 1 November 1963 (pp 337-338 in my edition):You speak of ‘sagging faith’... In the last resort faith is an act of will, inspired by love. Our love may be chilled and our will eroded by the spectacle of the shortcomings, folly, and even sins of the Church and its ministers, but I do not think that one who has once had faith goes back over the line for these reasons (least of all anyone with any historical knowledge). ... The temptation to ‘unbelief’ (which really means rejection of Our Lord and His claims) is always there within us.
…
It takes a fantastic will to unbelief to suppose that Jesus never really ‘happened’, and more to suppose that he did not say the things recorded of himI think that is a strong statement about how Tolkien felt about Christianity; there is a great deal more in the letter, but I am not certain that Dave would be too happy about my inflaming a thread and then departing for several more months: it will suffice to show that Tolkien wrote these words, and that there is strong evidence in many other places that he really believed them.

HLGStrider (Hi, HLGStrider, and congratulations!) is absolutely correct in asserting that Tolkien hated war: of his childhood and university friends, I believe he writes that he was one of less than a handful of survivors. (Again, I’d like to provide a citation and quotation, but can’t tonight. Someone else might…) His letters show considerable concern for Michael and Christopher, both of whom, I believe, served in World War II: Christopher did, I know, because The Lord of the Rings was mailed to him (to a post South Africa, if I remember correctly?) in serial format as Tolkien wrote and rewrote it.

But as to religion, Letter 142 To Robert Murray, SJ (“SJ” means Murray was a Jesuit), written Wednesday 2 December 1953 (p. 172 in my copy), Tolkien wrote, 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. A draft Letter 153 To Peter Hastings (“manager of … a Catholic bookshop in Oxford”), dated September 1954 (pp-187-196), has something more. The immediate ‘authorities’ are the Valar (the Powers or Authorities): the ‘gods’…to which is added a long footnote (pp 193–194)There are thus no temples or ‘churches’ … among ‘good’ peoples. They had little or no ‘religion’ in the sense of worship. For help they may call on a Vala (as Elbereth), as a Catholic might on a Saint… I do not think Hobbits practiced any form of worship or prayer (unless through exceptional contact with Elves). The Númenóreans … were pure monotheists. But there was no temple in Númenor (until Sauron introduced the cult of Morgoth). The top of … Meneltarma … was dedicated to Eru…, and there … God was … praised… Among the … remnants of the Faithful … religion … seems to have played small part; though a glimpse … is … in Faramir’s remark on ‘grace at meat’… In another missive to Murray, Letter 156, dated Thursday 4 November 1954 (pp 200-207), concerning religion within the contact of the narrative, he wrote,The High Elves ... had no 'religion' (or religious practices...) for those had been in the hands of the gods [i.e., Valar], praising and adoring Eru 'the One' ... on the Mt. of Aman.
…
The Númenóreans [were] monotheists ... like the Jews ... with only one physical centre of 'worship': the summit of the mountain Meneltarma...; [They] had no building and no temple, as all such things had evil associations. But they 'fell' again...

Sauron ... got Ar-Pharazôn’s mind under his ... control, and ... corrupted many of the Númenóreans, destroyed the conception of Eru, now represented as a mere figment of the Valar ..., and substituted a Satanist religion with a large temple [for] the worship of [Morgoth].In fact, whenever “organized” religion appears in LOTR, it seems almost always associated with corrupted practice and belief, and is, as far as I can tell, always associated with Morgoth, his servant Sauron, or Sauron’s servant the Witch King.

The one exception might be Tolkien’s reference to the Blue Wizards, who are said to have been “founders or beginners of secret cults and ‘magic’ traditions that outlasted the fall of Sauron,” in Letter 211 to Rhona Beare, dated Tuesday 14 October 1958 (pp 277–284). (My impression is that this might be in imitation of Morgoth and his attempts to dominate Men and Elves, just as Saruman’s fall – and apparent demand for worship – was in imitation, or at least certainly in the same error as, the acts of Sauron, with whom he was in contention for the position of “dominant” Maia in Middle-earth, for which Gandalf cast him from the order of Istari. Sauron, of course, not only demanded and received the worship of his mortal followers, but at the end of the Third Age, actually claimed to be Morgoth returned.) He then goes on to say, The Númenóreans ... were Hebraic and even more puritan ... there is practically no overt ‘religion’, or rather religious acts or places or ceremonies among the ‘good’ or anti-Sauron peoples in The Lord of the Rings. This quotation is just above the lovely sketch of a Númenórean king with an Egyptian-style crown on p 281, where there is a footnote to this citation that reads, Almost the only vestige of ‘religion’ is seen on II pp. 284–5 [in Tolkien’s edition of LOTR at the time] in the ‘Grace before Meat’. [Númenórean] theology is reduced to ‘that which is beyond Elvenhome and ever will be’... A draft letter 297 in August 1967 (pp 379–387) is unfortunately edited. The published portion ends with the statement, We are in a time when the One God, Eru, is known to exist by the wise, but is not approachable save by or through the Valar, though He is still remembered in (unspoken) prayer by those of Númenórean descent.followed by the editorial comment,
The text ends with a brief discussion of Númenórean religion.which is, of course, what we would like to know.

-0- (Late addition...)

I believe that, regarding Númenórean religion, the sovereigns (e.g., Elros Tar-Minyatur, Elendil, Aragorn Elessar, and all their descendants) acted as priest-kings, leading what public, congregational worship there was; in Númenor, there were three public worship services atop Meneltarma dedicated to Eru (see Unfinished Tales, “Description of the Island of Númenor”) which were led by the King of Númenor; but there does not seem to be any such service in Middle-earth, and the (sacred) hallow above Minas Tirith on Mindolluin seems to be

not atop the summit, as upon Meneltarma;
far too small to accommodate any but a few worshippers at any one time; and
unlike Meneltarma, generally available only to, or at least visited only by, the kings.



Finally, there is a long discussion that touches upon religion, and seems to be a deliberate foreshadowing of a Messiah, that appears in Morgoth’s Ring in Part 4, “Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth” (translated, “Debate of Finrod and Andreth”), but that is simply outside the scope of this thread, I think; besides, I’m exhausted and out of time altogether.

Hope this information is helpful and noninflammatory.

And now, I really must return to the salt mines of Núrnen…

[Eledhwen]

Finally, there is a long discussion that touches upon religion, and seems to be a deliberate foreshadowing of a Messiah, that appears in Morgoth’s Ring in Part 4, “Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth” (translated, “Debate of Finrod and Andreth”), but that is simply outside the scope of this thread, I think; And now, I really must return to the salt mines of Núrnen…Anyone interested in Finrod and Andreth (which casts interesting light on man's mortality being a 'gift of Illuvatar') can hop across the forum to here (http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?t=11354) for more.

[HLGStrider]

Discussions and activities aimed at understanding the depth of Tolkien's works, and their relationship to other mythologies, theologies, history, and other literary works.

Just copying the description to this section of the forum to prove once and for all that religion is allowed in the context of discussing how it shaped Tolkien's masterpiece. I noticed this for the first time today, and this seemed to be a good place to bring it up as the "Oh no, I can't mention Tolkien was Catholic or suggest that he might've felt this about religion because I'll be hit with the banning stick" thing has already come up in this thread.

[Firawyn]

"Oh no, I can't mention Tolkien was Catholic or suggest that he might've felt this about religion because I'll be hit with the banning stick" thing has already come up in this thread.


Banned? Me? No that could never happen! I'm way too lovable! :p

[Prince of Cats]

Plus your car is very, very broke

and we should have pity :p

[Firawyn]

My car was very broke...now I have a new old car...I do suppose I should change my avatar now...:o



However, I should still be given pity...'cause...well I can't think of a really good reason right now. I love my life.

[Bucky]

Just copying the description to this section of the forum to prove once and for all that religion is allowed in the context of discussing how it shaped Tolkien's masterpiece. I noticed this for the first time today, and this seemed to be a good place to bring it up as the "Oh no, I can't mention Tolkien was Catholic or suggest that he might've felt this about religion because I'll be hit with the banning stick" thing has already come up in this thread.

Well, I've never found that to be the case here - as opposed to some other sites like that famous Tolkien one that's so PC...... :rolleyes:

The Alcuin post is quite good brings most of the good Tolkien quotes about 'religion' to the forefront, except the famous & highly controversial one that those anti-Christians seem to hate & try to twist to deny the author's obvious meaning:

'The Lord of the Rings is basically a Catholic & Christian work.' - JRR Tolkien

Now this in no way contridicts that Tolkien keeps organized religion out of the world of Middle-earth. Within that world, as Alcuin pointed out, the paramiters of God/gods/religion are pretty fairly kept at a minimum.
Yet, what Tolkien is saying in his quote, is that there is an over riding theme of Jesus Christ & Christianity flowing through the characters & plot throughout TLOR.

Since this thread has been dormant so long, I might as well highjack it & point out some of the 'parables Tolkien uses:

Gandalf: Of course, as many point out, Gandalf sacrivices himself in Moria for the other members of the Fellowship versus the Balrog, dies & 'is sent back' from the dead (like Jesus), with a new body, clothed in white light & greater power to defeat the enemy. Note that the Balrog is called a 'demon of might' & this one comes from the depths of the ground, where fire emerges from the cracks (a metaphor for hell?).

The next most obvious and commonly named chacter that Tolkien patterns after Christ is Frodo. Here we see not the image of the Risen Christ as with Gandalf, but the Lamb of God, the sacrifice. Frodo gives himself to be the sacrfice to accomplish the task that will free everyone else from the bondage of evil represented in the Ring. Frodo, like Jesus is not responsable for this sin, yet he freely takes ther burden on himself, through great pain.

Then, I've heard Tolkien say Galadriel is a type of Virgin Mary. As I'm not Catholic & don't agree with their theology on Mary, I don't feel qualified to comment.

Next, there's Sam, the Suffering Servant. He lays down everything to serve another, just as Jesus says: "Love thy neighbor as thyself" & "When was I hungry & you did not feed me?; When was I thirsty & you did not give me drink?; When you did it not to the least of these you did it not to me & when you did it for the least of these, you did it for me."

Sam lays down everything to help Frodo accomplish his task.....
Sam gives Frodo his food & eats none (unlike the movie where he's "the fat Hobbit") :rolleyes:
He even gives Frodo all the water.
Finally, when Frodo can't walk up the mountain, Sam carries Frodo.

Earlier, Sam has a debate in his mind where he says (paraphrase):

"You can't go on giving him (Frodo) all the food & water"
"I can still go on a good ways"
"To what end? To die on the Mountain?"
"Well, if that was what I set out to do, then yes."
'.....As hope died in Sam's heart, it was turned to resolve.....'

That passage made me weep when I read it after I became a Christian. :cool:

Then there's Aragorn....

Aragorn?

Yes. The Return of the King.
How does the King return? Through the Paths of the Dead, just as Jesus dies, goes to hell & takes the keys of hell & death from satan before rising from the dead.

One more thing: Back to Gandalf & the Balrog......

"I am the Servant of the Secret Fire, weilder of the Flame of Arnor."

Now, anyone who's been Catholic knows that the Holy Spirit is represented by a flaming heart. 'The Secret Fire/Flame of Arnor', the secret, powerful fire of good that Gandalf posesses (so does the Maia Arien) & opposes the 'Flame of Udun' (literally Hellfire) undoubtably represents The Holy Spirit.

Then in the overall Myth, there's Morgoth, where Melkor's rebellion is an absolute copy of Satan's fall. Both are involved in music to God, rebell because they want Glory & control for themselves & pull down other spirits like them to help them, coming to Earth to reek havoc.

And Sauron in Numenor, Sauron plays Satan - He tempts Ar-Pharazon into trying to 'become like the gods' (sounds like the Garden of Eden). Sauron institues (in Tolkien's words) 'Satanic worship' in a false temple, worship to 'Melkor, Lord of Darkness' & Giver of Gifts'.

Sidenote - Does Sauron really want the Numenoreans to worship Melkor?
I doubt it.
Think about it - Sauron has become a God to the Men in M-e. But as prisoner to Ar-Pharazon, telling the Numenoreans to worship himself won't work, so he tells them to worship his old boss instead. By now, Sauron's all about Sauron, not Melkor/Morgoth anymore.