[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

You seem to have missed the point. It wasn't about intelligence, nor knowledge, nor curiosity; those were just the "accidents". It was pride, not curiosity, that was the motivator for Adam-she to pick the fruit and give it to Adam-he, both eating. Adam-they had experienced the surpassing wonder of sharing their evenings with the One who had made them and gave them all their meaning. They chose to throw that away in exchange for the promise of a questionable assertion from a serpent, whose words were directly contrary to those of the One they knew and loved and trusted. Why would anyone do such a thing? Pride. I could go on but I imagine that would only irritate some of you further.

Firstly, I'm not irritated by any of this. If I was I'd just do something else. I see no instance of 'pride' in the Genesis account, which is symbolic as far as I'm concerned. What I see is curiosity. God required them to remain in ignorance. If they had either we as humans would not have existed or we would have remained in ignorance as a species. Why put the damn tree in the Garden in the first place? Why allow the Serpent in? It was a 'test', & whether they passed or failed depends on your perspective. For all the undoubted sufferings of humanity over the millenia I'm glad we had the chance to grow up & stand on our own feet & make our own mistakes & become everything we're capable of becoming.

Nor would I make hay of such petty issues. The particular Christian author of whom we speak, himself said that his revision of LotR was consciously Christian. To call his statement into question requires little effort, but to prove it requires either unquestionable logic or an undeniable demonstration.

The evidence is in the texts themselves - there is nothing in the later drafts of LotR that is more 'Christian' than the later ones (or than in the published version). He also said that LotR was 'mere' entertainment with no deeper meaning -

As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none

is that correct in your opinion? And he did not say it was a 'Christian' work he said:"The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision."

If there is a significant difference in the later drafts it is in Frodo's behaviour on returning to the Shire. In the early draft he returns as a hero & in fact slays the chief ruffian in hand to hand combat. But I don't see how Frodo's ultimate fate in the published version is specifically 'Christian'.

For anyone who is interested
this article shows the desperate ends Christians have gone to in their efforts to 'prove' LotR is a 'Christian', specifically a Catholic, work. I think any objective reader will admit that the author's 'proofs' are merely similarities at best & silly at worst ('Did I mention that Aragorn looks like Christ?' the author of the article says at one point - I mean puh-leese!).