[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

Even if we accept that the incidents you describe are a consequence of 'grace' this merely means that the behaviour of Eru is similar to the behavour of the Christian God. That does not prove that LotR is a Christian work, merely that it doesn't contradict Christian teaching.

It seems to me that your statement disregards the source of the work. I am curious, if the pope would have been the author of this story, and if he declared it is catholic, would you still express your doubts about it?

Allah, Vishnu, the 'God' concieved by many cultures & religious traditions could be represented by Eru. If a non-Christian read the book they would have no reason to take it as a Christian work.

How much did he know about Allah or Vishnu, or the other cultures you reffer to? It seems that you have gone from ignoring the author to atributing him something he likely didn't have at all, which raises the question of the "glorious mistake" to which I reffered previously.

it does not evangelise, does not mention Jesus or the crucifixion & resurrection of Christ, or the need for repentance & acceptance of His sacrifice. If it mentioned, either directly or indirectly (as in Aslan's death & resurrection on LWW) I would happily accept it as a Christian work. It doesn't, therefore it isn't.

Let me put it another way: is a painting Christian only if it represents Jesus, the crucifixion, the resurrection, the need for repentance and acceptance of His sacrifice? Personally, I guess any serious painter would laugh if one were to impose such restrictions on him. Even if so, are these themes supposed to be shown only "photographically"? Can't they be shown in more subtle or abstract ways, in a form, which though not "photographical", still conveys the substance?

Because Fate would take away the important choices which characters must make in order to do the right thing.

It seems to me that the limits of the extension of Fate are arbitrarily set too large; if anything, Tolkien stated:

Originally Posted by Letter #153

Free Will is derivative, and is only operative within provided circumstances; but in order that it may exist, it is necessary that the Author should guarantee it, whatever betides : sc. when it is 'against His Will', as we say, at any rate as it appears on a finite view. He does not stop or make 'unreal' sinful acts and their consequences.

And if we take this to reffer to mean solely to the ainur, as it would appear from the letter, we must keep in mind about his Children that they are given expressely the gift of free will. If Fate operates in any way, it is to fulfill Eru's design: "the joy of his Children".

As to her list of Biblical figures who are similar to LotR characters, are we talking a deliberate taking up by Tolkien of those specific characters into his secondary world, or simply an example of 'applicability' due to some, often vague, similarities? I don't think the former can be the case, as Tolkien specifically denied 'inventing' very much of the story.

Yet he also revised a lot, which makes the former actually the more likely explanation, given the amount of revision that took place. But haven't we gone over this before?

It is also an idea put forward in a quite obscure text which Tolkien would not have considered would even be read by many (if any) of his fans

To what particular text are you reffering to? That idea appears in the letters, in the On Fairy-stories public lecture, he mentioned that to friends (and it made it to his biography) and even in the above quoted poem. Hardly obscure.