Welcome back davem. And do I detect a faint trace of humility …?
I think we all understand your position by now. I certainly do, and I agree with you up to a point. It has always been my own position that people should not seek to claim their own individual (and unique) understanding of LotR as the “correct and true” meaning of the book and so superior to the understanding of others. I have made that position clear on this thread, and I seem to remember arguing with you at length over the point on a certain other thread which shall remain nameless. Still, nice to see that all that effort paid off …
So, your position having been made clear to one and all, I cannot for the life of me understand why you continue to restate it over and over again at length.
You ask, in response to the biblical (and other) parallels that have been drawn: “So what?”
It seems to me that an appropriate response might be: “Simply because”.
Why, on a Tolkien-based forum such as this, should those who see particular parallels in LotR not share and discuss them with others who are interested in hearing of and discussing them? There does not have to be a reason sufficient to satisfy you (or Jonathan Glenn) for them to do so. Perhaps they feel that it will enhance their own understanding of the book. Perhaps it is simply for the pleasure of sharing their own understanding and learning of others’ experiences (although that doesn't mean that they all have to agree).
But, really, what does it matter?
You raise the possibility of discussion of biblical parallels becoming an excuse for bible study, or even evangelicising. Well, I think that you will have to trust the forum moderators to step in if that happens.
You question whether such discussion should be classified as “serious” discussion and assert that the question of whether a particular discussion is “serious” or not is a subjective one. Perhaps. But ultimately, here, the question of whether a discussion is appropriate to the forum is one for the moderators. If you disagree with their assessment, well, tough.
Finally, I must say that I feel uncomfortable with your references to the rep system. Reps are a means by which members can register their approval (or disapproval) of what another member has posted. They are a private matter between the rep-giver and the recipient and should not really be reproduced by the recipient without the giver’s permission. Moreover, it is the right of someone giving a rep (whether positive or negative) to do so anonymously should they choose, and you should not seek to make capital from the fact that some may have chosen to exercise that right. Also, I am not clear why you feel the need to keep referring to the positive reps that you have received on this thread. Suffice it to say that, if you think that it makes your case any the stronger, then you are sadly mistaken. It is entirely meaningless on its own (for example, I myself positively repped you early on in the thread, before things went awry, thus preventing me from negatively repping you later on, when I felt inclined to do so
). But, in any event, the rep system is not about "who's got the best argument", and it’s inappropriate to try to use it in that way (if that is what you are seeking to do).
So let’s keep rep out of the discussion from now on, shall we?