[littlemanpoet]

In spite of such multiple treatment, however, studies of these issues are with few exceptions flawed in three dangerous ways: by the general critical sin of Sloppy Statements, by a tendency to simple-minded and profligate Parallel-Hunting, and by the Voilà Syndrome, whereby the critic impressively points to something but fails to ask that first of all critical questions, "So what?"

I agree that this thread has suffered from all three flaws.

Originally Posted by davem

Now, what is LMP's point in stating that Christians think of the Norse gods in this way - what is he saying here?

1)This is what Christians think (& as far as I'm concerned they're right)?

2)This is what Christians think (aren't they silly?)

3) This is what Christians think (..... .......) - ie 'I'm just stating it for the record'

The answer to your question was in the post itself: "just a notion". During the time that the particular post in question was written, this thread had moved away from an antagonistic bent (not in itself a bad thing, merely meaning two sides debating opposing sides of an issue), and conversations were occurring instead of debates. That post should be read in that light.

Originally Posted by davem

The major problem with reading LotR as a 'Christian' work is that so much of it is clearly not in any way Biblically inspired.

This is by no means clear. I will present evidence as time allows. .... by tasting directly of the soup, by the way.

Originally Posted by davem

What one should not do is make similar claims for events & characters in LotR, without supporting evidence, because Tolkien wrote the story he wrote & set it up in the way he did, with its own rules & narrative structure.

I agree; but take note of the words I've bolded.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I find this kind of reading deeply troubling.

I agree. It is a foolish analysis and I think this Greg Wright, if presented accurately, doesn't know what he's talking about or doing. He doesn't understand Tolkien at all, if what is told here of his work is accurate (which I don't doubt, just playing it safe).

davem, Mr. Wright may be saying "evangelize", but he means "proselytize". I realize there doesn't seem to be much difference, but there is sufficient difference to be careful with terms. "Evangelium" is a word found in Tolkien's "On Faerie Stories", as many of us well know, by which he means "good news", which is of course its original intent. "Proselytizing" is of course the effort of trying to persuade someone else to one's own faith; not in itself wrong, although no doubt offensive to some in this age of toleration of all faiths (except for the act of proselytizing?).

Originally Posted by davem

Of course, a Christian will read LotR from a Christian perspective, a Pagan from a Pagan perspective, a humanist from a humanist perspective, & a pink elephantist from a pink elephantist perspective. The more important point though, is that even if LotR was a deliberate Christian allegory a Pagan will likely not pick up on that, or actually ignore it in favour of their own interpretation. Hence LotR (whatever Tolkien intended) is only a Christian book if the reader reads it in that way.

Are we moving back into the canonicity debate here? The book is what the author wrote it to be, and the reader's mind interprets the story in whatevery way the reader's mind will; it does not therefore follow that the reader's mind somehow magically turns the book into something other than what the author intended, regardless if it sits in one reader's hands or another.

Originally Posted by davem

I wonder why some people are so desperate to prove LotR is a Christian work. Does it have to be Christian for it to matter to them? Would it matter less if it could be shown not to be?

Who said anything about desperation? It seems to me, davem, that you're the one characterizing Christians in this way. I'm not desperate about it at all. I'm eager to share what I've discovered. And if you want a "so what" answer to that, it goes like this: understanding something I didn't before is its own pleasure; beyond that, I gain wisdom. Life becomes richer. That's what I'm eager for.

On Uniqueness:

It is necessary, for the sake of fairness, to dispense with the double standard such that only that which is uniquely Christian is acceptable whilst all that is required of Nordic, pagan, and other sources, is evidence that the particular fits the accepted description of the source in question. We must apply one standard to both sides of the argument. If we insist that in every case only that which uniquely belongs to a given possible source, will be accepted, we will quickly run aground, realizing that the standard is frankly impossible; not a faith system or mythic source in the world can hold up to such a standard. Therefore, the only legitimate standard is as follows:

Does that which is found in the text adequately fit the description of the possible source?

Exhibit #1: Pity stayed Bilbo

In the Prologue to The Fellowship of the Ring, section four, paragraph seven, we read,
"...Bilbo was tempted to slay [Gollum] with his sword. But pity stayed him...."
First, this is precisely the same way it is presented in the revised "The Hobbit, Riddles in the Dark". Note the passive tense. It does not say 'Bilbo took pity on him', but 'pity stayed him'. Pity is thus something acting upon Bilbo rather than he doing the pitying. What is this pity? Does it have a source? If not, we are left with an unanswerable conundrum, or else not the best writing (passive tense instead of active). If this pity does have a source, what is it? Or are we dealing with a 'who'?
The question is too early to answer yet; we don't have enough information, and must read further to see if any answers are forthcoming.

to be continued....