[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Lhuna

In a way you answered your question yourself. Faith - being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see ...

But surely one can have faith (and the attendant absence of proof) without taking everything in the Bible as literal (as Mithalwen has pointed out, there are those who adopt this approach). Indeed, if one accepts the Bible as a factual account then it rather proves the existence of God, and so obviates the need for faith.

But my main (on-topic) point was that, if one can perceive God's message in a story like LotR, which is clearly a fictional account, why can one not accept that God's principal message may successfully be conveyed in an account which, while historically relevant, is nevetheless not strictly literal?

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

I think there are many Christians who haven't thrown the baby out with the bathwater and accept a creator while taking the story of Adam and Eve as allegory.

True. And this apppoach to faith I find easier to accept and understand. Yet there is also the problem associated with any faith that requires one to adhere to a particular doctrine or face eternal damnation. I recall once speaking to someone who was convinced that she would not see her parents in the afterlife since, although they were decent enough people, they did not share her faith and her particular beliefs and were therefore (in her mind) slated for a one-way trip to Hell. It rather put me off Christianity, or that particular doctrinal approach at least, for life.

I think it was you, Mith, who brought up the distress caused to Tolkien's wife by his insistance that she convert to his faith. Have I got that right? If so, I presume that his insistance was grounded in a similar approach.