My point is, the primary influence of Tolkien's life and work, particularly where it concerns the Lord of the Rings, is demonstrably his interest in language, as stated in his own words. The spiritual came later, in revision.
If any influence is put first in line, it is that of language. There is no straw dog. Or cat for that matter. Christian influence should be mentioned, and it is, as you say (along with everything, including the kitchen sink). It’s given its proper weight and context, outside of some with a clear personal bias, who wish to exaggerate this aspect.
Gilthalion, you have a circular and unprovable argument.
Essentially what you are telling us is that those 'blind' who are not Christian (or a vague classification of those whose views concur?) cannot
see the fundamental Christian nature of Tolkien, so therefore can't appreciate the LotR for what it is.
This precludes anyone who is not Christian from even participating in the discussion, as they are ‘blind.’
So therefore we should just take your word for it, as a Christian who knows better?
Really?
To delve into this a little deeper: people are converted to Christianity every day.
When does this non-blindness occur?
- The moment they are baptized?
But they did not believe in Christianity before, and do not have the socialization and background to understand its mores (note historical problem in converting multi-theistic societies to Christianity, where they merely translated Christ to be one of many Gods).
- When they study the teachings of Jesus?
But there are many people who study the bible, who can quote chapter and verse, who do not consider themselves Christian or adhere to its tenets, and in fact study it to argue with it more effectively.
- Is it the function of general moral sensibilities, of being a good person, (which is what you seem to imply here)?
(So only good people agree with your position therefore, so those who disagree - fill in the blank.)
Well there are many of different views, who can be considered good people of sound morality from the perspective of their ethical conduct. That is my definition, it tends to be commonly accepted, please let me know if you have a different one.
Many person with good ethical conduct disagree with the position that Christianity is of pre-eminent importance in the Lord of the Rings.
Does this prove they are not of such sound moral sensibility, as could be inferred from your statements?
That would be a tiresome, and arrogant, perspective.
Then is it therefore impossible to understand the Lord of the Rings unless one is a) Christian b) of good moral character and c) have been an indoctrinated Christian all ones life and so can see from this perspective?
Well, aren’t there are also Christians who don’t feel Christianity is of pre-eminent importance in the LotR?
Are these Christians 'blind' to this subtle morality and influence?
There are even some Christians who feel references to magic in the LotR are indicative of amorality, so wholeheartedly disagree with this perspective.
Are their perspectives of no value?
Should we therefore only listen to a small percentage of views, to be representative of all “non-blind” Christians?
Then 'blind' means any who disagree with this point of view, not just the amoral, and non-Christians.
That also would imply that every
other perspective on the LotR is wrong.
Though this perspective can only be proven or understood by those who agree, so there's no proof beyond a fragile, uh, pardon me, blind acceptance.
{Aside: While I understand the value of faith, it was never the intention of faith to take anything that is said unchallenged without questioning the source. As I am questioning you, whether you like it or not. Otherwise we would believe anything, yes? When one sees LotR parallels, one is drawing them
oneself from another source, the Bible. Or they are not accurate. Tolkien himself was no expert on theology, as I've pointed out, and would be horrified if his "ripping good yarns" were exaggerated to the point of religious cannon.}
Perhaps each perspective, including all those other than this one particular view, are so rarified that they can only be understood by their particular adherents.
This later argument would mean that there’s no commonality, and actually opposes the very universiality Tolkien sought. Likewise, the particular view that Tolkien was speaking to a uniquely ‘sighted’ Christian minority opposes his own wishes and statements, in the same way.
Is it not more likely that each individual, regardless of their religious perspective, will see the LotR from their own eyes?