Fantasy Morality

[tumhalad2]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

For one thing, because you simply ignored the statements. You said it, I argued, and you repeated it again over and over without paying attention.

In your humble opinion.

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

You said that Eru is unlike the 'typical' christian God, because he lacks the qualities that God has. Now you say that the Christian God is not a proper God. So what are you trying to prove?

I said I'm assuming Eru has the characteristics of the mainstream view of the Christian god. Got it?

I have subsequently argued that there is no one version of the Christian god (how could there be), but that Eru pertains the most widely accepted general view of the Christian god, i.e, one with the omni-characteristics.

Why don't you read my posts more carefully: I did not say that "Eru is unlike the 'typical...god because the lacks the qualities that God has"

I argued that if we assume he has these characteristics, then it follows that he is subject to the same kinds of logical contradictions that the Christian god is.

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I don't want to turn this into a discussion about religion, but I think these two bits are important:
The Christian-Judean God: Gives punishment of suffering to those who choose to do wrong. Doesn't randomly make people suffer.

That's one theological view. The Book of Job presents another wholly different one. How are you to know the "truth"? What's your methodology?

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

In LOTR the consequences also depend on the choice of the person. Gandalf said that "Frodo was meant to have the Ring". But did Frodo carry it because Gandalf told him to do it? No. It's because Frodo chose to follow what Gandalf said. Just like Turin chose not to follow what Melian said.

So what? I agree insofar as its relevant. I'm not talking about choices, I'm talking about providence!

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Frodo was "meant to have it" by fate, not Gandalf or Valar or whatever (and saying that, he finds out from Gandalf that he's meant to have it, but maybe not to carry it all the way.). It's the same fate that does wonders in The Sil and COH, both happy and sad. I mentioned already that Earendil and Elwing, refugees from different kingdoms, somehow just met up and saved the world. Another example is how the Silmarilli randomly ended up creating a balance between the sky, the water, and the ground/fire.

I'm sorry, this is getting tiresome. What you say is all very interesting, but none of it really refutes what I say, and just brings up so many more questions than answers.

So - this "fate" is not actually benevolent?
I'm not talking about Earendil - perhaps he is spurred on by the same kind of benevolent providentiality in LoTR? So what? It's not there in CoH.
A balance? That's very poetic - hardly evidence of divine intervention.

A la Mnemosyne:

Some people (believers) interpret the Bible as though it is singly revalatory - but so what? I certainly don't. There are far too many contradictions and competing "moral universes" as you say. Just because some people interpret it that way doesn't mean I do, probably because for me the Bible represents the literature of an ancient people, not a divinely inspired set of scriptures. I can tolerate disunity within the Bible.

And likewise I agree: Middle-earth is made more real by its competing implicit cosmologies.