Would the Middle Earth saga be considered a religion in of itself?

Would the Middle Earth saga be considered a religion in of itself? Im not talking as related to Christianity or Judism or Islam or any other "real" religion, Its just that Tolkien did the books so comepletly that there is an actual God (Iluvitar,or Ea) and and afterlife, and it is mentioned that there will be an ending of Middle Earth (possibly the apocolypse?) dont get me wrong, im not some cult leader trying to convert people, i just want people's thoughts on the subject.

[Thinhyandoiel]

I guess it depends on your perspective. If you're that obsessed with it that you worship Manwe and Yavanna, than it would be a religion to you. However, I think most of us view it as an amazing piece of literature, and while we respect the Valar and all that while we are in Middle-Earth, when we put the book down many of us hardly give that much thought to it. I don't know, I think I'm going around in circles! O.o I need to get my thoughts in order..hmm. Interesting thread though!

[littlemanpoet]

I was part of a similar discussion some while back - on another Tolkien site - asking what if there were no religious writings, such as the Baghavad Gita, the Bible, or any of them, but we had all of Tolkien's works - what would life be like? As I recall the discussion petered out pretty quickly. So I agree that there is a completeness about it; but isn't that precisely what Tolkien was aiming for, making myth?

[Orodhromeus]

Very interesting, not that I hadn't pondered on it before! I believe that if one was educated from the beginning of his existence with Tolkien's texts taken as seriously as the Bilbe/Coran/other religious work, and if the deucator would favor Tolien's perception, then one might grow to become a believer in Tolkien's mythology, and subsequently worship the pantheon of Arda, taken as real. It would be a very interesting experiment to realize, especially to show the futility of all the religions of the world (ie nobody believes what Tolkien wrote was non-fiction).

[Tigerlily Gamgee]

It is pretty clear that the Valar are like the Gods of Middle Earth (at least, that is how it seemed to me). I was wondering, during Lord of the Rings, if there was any religious belief among the elves - when I read the Silmarillion my question was answered.
Also, about the afterlife aspect... yes, the elves do go to the Undying Lands, but I don't believe it is ever stated where men go when they die. So, it is a mystery for the men of Middle Earth as it is for us. I am pretty sure that all they ever said about the mortal spirit is that they know not where it goes after death. Does this apply to Dwarves and Hobbits as well??

[KingCarlton]

Belethiriel - This is a fairy tale, though of much more complex nature.
It's all made up, just for entertainment. It is a fantastic history of a time and place imagined.

Thinhyandoiel - Good Job there.


I had read somewhere before that Tolkien actually loathed the idea of having any religious significance interpreted in his work.

The Gods, creatures and characters in the LOTR Books and the Sil have all defintely been influenced from various cultural and religious sources around the world, but only just for creative purposes and not for any moral significance.
And like every other story it potrays the age old formula of Good defeating Evil.

Besides every religion is a story with a set of rules that somebody sat down and wrote.

Taking LOTR for some religious significance would be wrong and an insult to J.R.R.Tolkien.


Know Peace !

[ April 13, 2002: Message edited by: KingCarlton ]

[Merendis]

never know, it could be, according to my sources so many people put their religon as 'Jedi knight' on the Cencus it's an offical religon...not sure how accurate that is, but all somehting takes to be a religon is a following

[VanimaEdhel]

Do you know what is weird? When I was very little (I'm talking about 5 or 6 here), I, not being of any one religion (as I am not still today), would create religions for myself. One such religion involved a "head" god named Manwe with a wife, who I think I remember was named Vana. There were many other major gods and spirits of nature, and it was a lot like the world of Arda. There was also an evil one, I forget his name, that was a lot like Malkor. When I started reading "The Silmarillion" I remembered this religion and the history of these deities is almost parallel to that of my made up religion. Then, I had never even HEARD of LotR or The Hobbit or HoME or UT or anything. Now I am trying to figure out exactly how I thought of those gods.

And why is the name Eru familiar? Has it been mentioned in mythology somewhere (like being based on a mythological god of some sort)?

[ April 13, 2002: Message edited by: VanimaEdhel ]

[Arwen Imladris]

I think that it could be considered a religion. There is a supreme being, a creation story, tales of the people created that pretty much brings us to where we are today. I'm no big religion expert, but I think that that is what is basicly included in any religion.

I guesse it is a matter of opinion.

[littlemanpoet]

VanimaEdhel:

Have you heard of archetypes? Carl Jung, famous psychologist, posited a "collective unconsious", which means that we all have the same deep categories written on our dna. That your pantheon took the shape it did is not a great surprise. Your choice of names is more surprising, but makes sense in part because you apparently had an early well developed aesthetic for language, recognizing some sounds as beautiful instead of ugly, masculine or feminine, and so on. These explanations only tell half the story, though, it seems to me. Who knows what else might have been going on?

KingCarlton: It is no surprise to me that Tolkien loathed the idea of LotR having religious significance. My turn on Belethiriels' question was more interested in the kinds of things that would be valued compared to that which is valued in Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Shintoism, or whatever.

[Orodhromeus]

Yes, Jung's idea is often described as the "noosphere", an ambient invisible (spiritual if you like) pool where ideas from humans from all over the world pour in, and from which ideas are taken from. His point is that you can't appropriate an idea as yours, but you can only acknowledge the entirety of humanity of it. At least that's how I see it.

And Eru is reminescent of Eros, the God of Love/desire of ancient Greece. He's unlike Aphrodite/Venus, who was the goddess of plain love.

[akhtene]

I happened to walk into a site entitled sort of "Fantasy & Christianity: Invitation to a Dispute" Well, there's actually no dispute there, as the participants merely support each other in the idea that fantasy is the most dangerous thing for Christian souls, as its aim is to take your mind away from the world created by God to the worlds created by God knows whom (sorry for the pun).And worst of all, they blame Tolkien and his books for the spread of satanism and other weird cults.A couple of guys who stated that Tolkien's works discovered Christianity for them were just hushed.

Disgusting... [img]smilies/mad.gif[/img]

[Jessica Jade]

I am pretty sure that all they ever said about the mortal spirit is that they know not where it goes after death. Does this apply to Dwarves and Hobbits as well??

Tigerlily, I believe that Dwarves go to the Halls of Mandos when they die and they do not leave. I think that there is something in the Sil about that, but I'll have to find the passage. They do not share the fate of Men, because they were created by Aulë the Vala before the children of Ilúvatar were awakened.

Tolkien's world and creations are certainly as complicated as Greek mythology (which I have always found fascinating...i love mythology [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]). I wonder if people actually worship the Greek gods? If so, then certainly it's possible that people could worship Eru and the Valar. Someone could experiment on a human guinea pig, educate them from when they're young to believe in Eru and the creation of Arda and all it's history. If this were done, then I believe that the person would indeed grow up to believe that Eru is God, elves exist, etc etc. I don't think that it would be a good idea to do that, of course, but the worship of Eru&co. is not beyond the realm of possibility.

You know how we are required to study Greek mythology in class at some point during our education? I was thinking, why not study Tolkien's mythology too? Maybe the difference is that people actually did believe in the Greek gods, whereas everyone knows that Tolkien is pure fantasy. I still think that all schools should do a Tolkien mythology unit though!

My turn on Belethiriels' question was more interested in the kinds of things that would be valued compared to that which is valued in Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Shintoism, or whatever.

I think that the same basic things are valued. Like how Eru lets everything happen for a reason and has a plan for the universe. And how men and other beings (elves in Tolkien's case) are punished if they openly defy God/Eru and the Valar. (think: the downfall of Númenor & the disaster brought by the Oath of Fëanor, compared to how Adam and Eve caused the Fall of Man when they ate the apple from the Tree of Knowledge). There are other similarities too but I'll have to think about this some more.

Interesting thread! [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Child of the 7th Age]

In one way, the "religion" of Middle-earth would be more bleak than the Creation stories of the Bible. The world in Middle-earth was corrupted or marred during the singing of the music. This is technically before Arda itself was created (is it not?), and certainly before the creation of the Children of Iluvatar. Unlike Man of our world, the Elves never had the chance to walk in an unmarred world.

In the Bible, we have scenes of Adam and Eve walking through an Earth which is still uncorrupted. It is the presence of the serpent as the outside agent and Adam and Eve's acceptance of him that led to the corruption.

So couldn't you argue that the Children of Iluvatar in Middle-earth had even less possibility of maintaining their goodness than the Adam and Eve of the Judaeo-Christian Bible?

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[Mithadan]

Child, I think that Tolkien's world is not more bleak but perhaps requires more will and courage to tread the proper path. Melkor meddled in and marred everything that was done by the other Valar so that no physical aspect of Arda is without taint or as it should have been. Yet Melkor's actions were not wholely without fair results as Tolkien comments in the Silmarillion. If not for Melkor's excesses there may not have been clouds, rain, snow, or mountains. Perhaps all rivers would have run straight course, all lakes may have been perfect circles and the oceans flat and featureless. He unintentionally created much of the "wilder" beauty of Arda.

Also, the Children, Men and Elves, were at least born free of taint though Melkor's actions inevitably mar their thoughts and deeds. I think that a sub-theme of Tolkien's Legendarium is that the Valar attempted to construct a paradise in the West but were using materials marred by Melkor so that their paradise itself was marred. Despite their best efforts, they could not maintain it free of Melkor's evil and so it necessarily had to be removed from Arda.

[Bêthberry]

*sits conversationally on the bank of the Withywindle, chewing a long piece of grass and watching the water flow*

This is an interesting comparison, Child, but I have one question about the Christian cosmology. When did Satan, who was originally the highest angel, rebel? I'm not sure where this is in the Bible, but Milton has lots to say about it. This would mean that this world is as prone to error as Arda.

But another point is that, in Christian ethics, God works to turn even evil to good. Isn't this the reason why Gandalf warns Frodo not to harm Gollem?

To my mind, even acknowledging Tolkien's stipulations against allegory (a genre which I think is not applicable to LOTR), there is a consistency of moral vision in LOTR with Tolkien's own Christian values. LOTR is a story about transcendence in a fallen world. Thus, I would not see the "Middle Earth saga" as a separate religion.

*nods cordially*
Bethberry

[ June 12, 2002: Message edited by: Bethberry ]

[Lush]

Tolkien's creation is deep, very deep, probably deeper than anything any of us will be able to write in our time, but it is limited nevertheless, and the thinking person does end up slamming into the bottom after a while. "Love not too well the work of thy hands, and the devices of thy heart" is what was said to Turgon in the Sil, and I think that Tolkien believed in those words himself.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Mith -- Yes, perhaps my choice of the word "bleak" to describe this aspect of Tolkien's creation was a bit strong. And I know that Tolkien would certainly agree that, in the end, any discord woven by Melkor will be transformed into an even greater rendering of the Music. Indeed, as you point out, some of that can already be seen in the wonderful variations introduced into Arda.

However, this week, I have been rereading the Silm and I can't shake the feeling that Tolkien's idea of history as a "long defeat" and his strong bouts of personal pessimism greatly influenced his portrayal of the Creation and fabric of Middle-earth.

And see also the statement by JRRT below in one of his Letters which is a fairly strong staement regarding the corruption of Ea.

Bethberry --

Actually, I checked in the Letters to see what Tolkien says about the contrast of the two "myths".

I suppose a difference between this myth and what may be called Christian mythology is this. In the latter the Fall of Man is subsequent to and a consequence (though not a necessary consequence) of the 'Fall of the Angels': a rebellion of created free-will at a higher level than Man; but it is not clearly held (and in many versions is not held at all) that this affected the 'World' in its nature: evil was brought in from outside, by Satan. In this myth the rebellion of created free-will precedes creation of the World (ea); and Ea has in it subcreatively introduced, evil, rebellions, discordant elements of its own nature already when the Let It Be was spoken. The Fall or corruption, therefore, of all things in it and all inhabitants of it was a possibility if not inevitable.

So it sounds like we were both "right". The Fall of Angels did preceed the Fall of Man, but the fabric of Earth remained untainted. This, of course, is in sharp contrast to what the author says about the corruption of Ea.

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[Bêthberry]

A very interesting quotation. Thanks for providing it, Child.(I would love to wander off on an unrelated tangent here about Satan, but I will restrain myself.)

You offer a psychological explanation for 'the long defeat.' This is intriguing and I do not deny its possibility, but I wonder if there are not other explanations, more in keeping with aesthetic creation. (I'm of the opinion that Freud ruined much serious thought about the craft of writing. JMHO) Is there something intentional in Tolkien's sense of its difference from Christian creation?

For instance, does it derive from the warrior epics--that sense of inevitable doom and the need nevertheless for heroic action in the face of such inevitability? (I'm thinking of the OE poem The Battle of Maldon.


*turns a puzzled look at Lush*

You wouldn't by any chance be implying that we here are not 'thinking persons,' would you?

Bethberry

[ June 13, 2002: Message edited by: Bethberry ]

[Aragorn Husband of Arwen]

I do not see the Lord of the Rings mythology as a religion, the books, like the Qu'ran or the Bible. I see the Lord of the Rings as wonderful series of books and off-branches of books, whose writer took deep into thought created a world of wonder, excitement and adventure. He created, a whole new world, a world in which Lord of the Rings fans today still play in. I imagine that my children's, and their childrens childrens generation will still be play in that world of his.

I don't believe he'd like to call it a religion, a mythology yes, but nothing more. Great literature hath no limits.

[Lush]

*turns a puzzled look at Lush*

You wouldn't by any chance be implying that we here are not 'thinking persons,' would you?

Nope, but I am "implying" that if you spend about six months buried in Tolkien-land, without shutting off the analytical part of your brain, and the seeking part of your soul, you do end up with a conclusion that this is literature, mystical, powerful, beautiful, but literature nevertheless, and as such, has spiritual limitations. As in, I am fascinated by Tolkien's Varda, but I could not worship her.
Frankly, the closest I've come to "worshipping" Tolkien's characters is the (figurative, thank God) drooling over my image of Glorfindel, and the like. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[burrahobbit]

Only by stupid people.

[Lush]

Thanks burrahobbit, you've said it there in 4 words (where as I used 200).

[Bêthberry]

this is literature, mystical, powerful, beautiful, but literature nevertheless, and as such, has spiritual limitations.

And so I suppose you are saying that, either the Bible is not literature, or, if it is, it has spiritual limitations.

*chews reflectively on her piece of grass while considering discussion and debate without ad hominem attacks*

[burrahobbit]

Thanks, Lush. The problem with these people is that you can't ever be figurative or they may mistake the beauty of your words with kindness. It happens all the time. You've got to be blunt and concise or your point will be entirely missed.

[Legolas]

Bethberry, whether or not someone believes the Bible has spiritual limitations is irrelevant. You know that not all this site's visitors are Christians, and by bringing up the topic of the Bible's spiritual side into it, you open the discussion up to the possibility of becoming a religious dispute...something that has, time and time again, proven to be pointless, as the participating parties are most likely so set in their ways that what the others assert will fall on deaf ears, whether right or wrong.

Furthermore, Christians believe the Bible to be a nonfiction work. This thread deals with strictly fictional work.

As KingCarlton summed up beautifully, Tolkien's work is a fairy tale.

[ June 13, 2002: Message edited by: Legalos ]

[Lush]

And so I suppose you are saying that, either the Bible is not literature, or, if it is, it has spiritual limitations.

I don't consider the Bible literature in the same way I consider Tolkien to be literature. Tolkien is a great read. The Bible is a cornerstone of the Christian religion. I believe that when I die, I will go to hang out with the Christian God, as opposed to Eru. Therefore, it is only natural for me to treat the Bible differently than the LotR and other cool books, Dr. Seuss, Narnia, Emmanuelle (oops, was I supposed to admit reading that? Probably not [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] ). See my point?
I just think that treating Tolkien's works like a religion is taking it a bit too far. The same with Jedi Knights. The same with books and movies in general. They make me feel wonder and fascination, but I don't bow down to them in reverence either.

[Mithadan]

Nope, but I am "implying" that if you spend about six months buried in Tolkien-land, without shutting off the analytical part of your brain, and the seeking part of your soul, you do end up with a conclusion that this is literature, mystical, powerful, beautiful, but literature nevertheless, and as such, has spiritual limitations. As in, I am fascinated by Tolkien's Varda, but I could not worship her.

Nor could I worship "her". Whatever the phrasing of the initial post, subsequent posts make it clear that this topic turned to a more hypothetical "what if" thread. I doubt anyone who posted would have intended to be taken literally regarding Tolkien's writing as a potential basis for religion.

Perceiving an apparent attack (giving the benefit of the doubt) Bethberry defended her statements and positions rather than responding in kind. Bravo! In response, she receives an admonishment suggesting she has passed some line of demarcation established by this board's "management".

As "management" (we haven't been formally introduced Bethberry, hi, I'm one of the 'powers that be'), I would like to emphasize that no such line exists where legitimate on-topic discussion is concerned. A line does exist with respect to disparagement, personal attacks, flaming etc. That line has not been passed, though big brother is watching.

This is a potentially interesting topic. If you wish to contribute please do, if you do not then don't.

[Bêthberry]

Sorry for the delay in replying, but some young Brandybucks snuck into the Forest looking for thrills and adventure and, well, I simply couldn't let them leave disappointed. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

*brings out pitcher of iced tea and glasses and a platter brimming with 'shrooms, carrots, cauliflower, peppers and a spinach dip, for all to share*

Hello and greetings, Mithadan. *curtsies* I did not think there would be such an arbitrary ban on discussion here. Indeed, one of the reasons I have come to the Barrow Downs is the high standard maintained here for quality discussion.

burrahobbit, Lush, and Legalos, as Mithadan rightly observed, this has turned into a discussion of 'what if.' I have never stated that I worship Eru; in fact, none of my posts have been concerned at all with my personal beliefs; you do not know what they are.

I joined the discussion when the issue raised was the presence of evil. One aspect of religion, aside from formal worship of deities, is an explanation of evil. I assume that was Child of the 7th Age's interest.

Then it seemed to me that the discussion turned to the issue of rigidly separating sacred and secular texts. I wanted to ask about the possibility of another feature of texts, their potential for providing spiritual insight or value, whether or not the text is regarded as sacred or not. Separating religious books from literature overlooks, IMHO, this possibility.

I could just as easily have named the Koran as the Bible, but I choose the book which belonged to Tolkien's belief, wondering if there were similarities in the 'structure of belief,' to use a term from Terry Eagleton, the lit critic. Both the Bible and LOTR are narrative, and narrative is, as critical thought over the last twenty years has shown, a fundamental way the human mind has of perceiving the world. Can narrative speak to us in ways that formal doctrine can't?

This is my query: is it possible to find spiritual insight in a narrative which one does not'worship'?

*pauses to take a sip of iced tea and pass around the 'shrooms*

Bethberry

[burrahobbit]

My first post was a reply to nothing but the first post of the thread. I hadn't even read the thread before I posted, and I still haven't read all of it.

*pauses to take a sip of iced tea and pass around the 'shrooms*

Don't do drugs, Bethberry.

[Lush]

Ah, aren't we all so touchy? [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] For what it's worth, I was merely stating my own feelings toward the subject at hand, which are, at best, feelings of utter bemusement.
To answer your question Bethberry, I would agree that certain works of art make the soul quiver with delight (excuse my high-falutin' talk, I've been reading Updike all week), and I believe in divine inspiration. Meanwhile, for some people, Tolkien's world really is limitless, and Varda or Manwë really are worshipped by some, and I should probably respect that. However I'm not above saying that I find the idea sort of silly.
Of course, I didn't mean to come off as making assumptions about dearest Bethberry's own religious beliefs, but ya know, I just act like a snob at times. Hell, I am a snob. Well, small price to pay for being so stupendously perfect otherwise! [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[Lush]

burrahobbit, the War on Drugs is lost on me.

*takes shroom from Bethberry, and washes it down with some Stolichnaya*

[burrahobbit]

Don't do drugs, Lush.

[Legolas]

Bethberry, I'm not sure you even read my post. I was simply stating that asking if the Bible has spiritual limitations is not a good idea, nor does it disprove Lush's statement that literature has spiritual limitations. I have no idea of your beliefs, nor did I attempt to infer anything from your post or imply anything by mine. Certainly at no time was I lead to believe that you worshipped Eru, or anyone/anything else, for that matter.

If one does not believe in God or Jesus, then the Bible certainly is going to be just another fiction work that has spiritual limitations.

If one does believe in God/Jesus, then the Bible isn't going to be simply categorized as a literary work...it's scripture, spiritual doctrine. The tales enclosed, though they might, are not written to enrapture and enchant the reader, but to provide instruction for a fruitful life.

Insert any religious text in place of the Bible and the same holds true.

My posts have been entirely directed at your supposition of

And so I suppose you are saying that, either the Bible is not literature, or, if it is, it has spiritual limitations."

...so I was basically saying nonbelievers would say the Bible has spiritual limitations and believers would think of it as more than literature.

To answer your question about spiritual insight found in a narrative one doesn't worship...sure there is.

Though the Muslims don't hold Jesus as a divine being, they see the value in what he had to say and the narratives of his deeds provided in the Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Another good example from the Bible would be the parables that Jesus told. The story of the Good Samaritan, the parable of the seed and the sower...

The parables are rather simple in that there are more deeply touching narratives, but they're the easiest to see as they have a universal scope.

I do believe that this sort of spiritual insight does has limitations. More often than not, the insight provided is something we already knew in our minds to be true, we just were not wholy conscious or sure of it. The insight provided is more a confirmation in application of what we've already been taught. Perhaps you could give a specific example?

[ June 14, 2002: Message edited by: Legalos ]

[Child of the 7th Age]

I guess I will rejoin this discussion seeing that lemonade and a vegetable plate are being served. Cautiously sticks toe in the water.......

I personally did not see anything in these later discussions to suggest that Bethberry or anyone else was aguing for the viewpoint that Tolkien's writings should or could be treated as a religion. Like most of the other posters here, I would find such treatment of the writings to be incongruous, at the very least. From the author's own perspective, I am sure he would have found such suggestions highly disturbing.

But, at the same time, I see no problem in comparing Tolkien's mythology with that of other traditions, or asking the question whether spiritual insight can be found in a narrative which is not perceived to be a religious statement per se.

As far as the "spiritual limitations" of the books go, I agree that the writings were never intended to be used as a blueprint for
creating the outlines of any new religion or modes of worship. Such an assertion would border on the ridiculous. But I do find value in looking at a piece of literature, whether it is Tolkien or another author, and asking whether a reader can derive spiritual insight from it.

Let's take a piece of literature which has a totally different viewpoint than Tolkien--His Dark Materials trilogy by Pullman. The author is openly antagonistic to organized religion of any variety, but his writings are extremely original and do contain spiritual meaning, at least to this reader. Now that meaning may be quite different from what I find in Tolkien. But, in both cases, it is possible to read the books and come up with lessons, concepts, and ideas that, to my mind, are best labelled spiritual.

In a similar vein, it's also possible to read Tolkien and find insights into human psychology, even though the author was certainly not attempting to write a psychological treatise.

A work of fiction should reflect the totality of life and, for some, an important part of that totality has to be spiritual concepts and themes.

And why should any discussion of spiritual themes immediately transform itself into a "religious dispute"? I am not a Christian, but if an author is Catholic, I would be foolish to ignore those elements of his belief which may be reflected in his writings. No one is asking me to believe as he does, merely to be able to see those things which he himself thought were important.

Nor do I agree with KingCarleton that LotR is a "fairy tale". The Lord of the Rings and the Silmarillion have many elements which go beyond a fairy tale. Indeed, when I view Tolkien's subcreations, I see a three-part division: the Hobbit as Fairy Tale, Lord of the Rings as Legend, and the Silmarillion as Myth.

Bethberry, as far as your question about the "long defeat" and to what extent the Silm mirrors that concept, I would agree that psychological issues were a factor, but not the primary one. The main influence on Tolkien in this regard were his Christian beliefs. There are many personal statements in his Letters which indicate Tolkien felt that, as a Catholic, he did not see any way the problem of evil would be resolved within the circles of this world. In a personal sense this would mean death; in terms of the world as a whole it would have to be the end of time.

As far as the ancient epics go, they are even more pessimistic than Tolkien. The biggest difference between tolkien and these epics hinges on the question of free will. This theme is very evident in LotR, but totally absent from most ancient writings whose underlying motif is that of man's doom.

Yawn, that's it for now.

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[Legolas]

"And why should any discussion of spiritual themes immediately transform itself into a "religious dispute"?"

It doesn't, immediately. I was just heading it off before anyone went down the road of the Bible/Koran/whatever being fictional literature vs. a real spiritual guide...in my estimation, judging the existence of literature's spiritual limitations on a work written and compiled soley for spiritual instruction doesn't really make sense, so going down that path would take away from the point of this intelligent (so far) conversation I'm happy to be a part of in light of what is happening to many other threads.

Moving along...I find the rest of your post very reasonable, echoing my own thoughts almost perfectly.

[Gandalf_theGrey]

* smokes thoughtfully, nods agreement with the points Child of the 7th Age has just made, having nothing further to add himself *

[mark12_30]

Bethberry:


You wrote:
"This is my query: is it possible to find spiritual insight in a narrative which one does not'worship'?"

Oh, totally. Consider the works of George Macdonald, for instance. http://www.johannesen.com/OnlineGMD.htm

I don't worship MacDonald's short story "The Golden Key". http://www.ev90481.dial.pipex.com/golden_key.htm I don't take it as canon. I don't treat it as "The Sword Of The Spirit."

But is it ever full of profound truths. It is one of my favorite pieces to read, and reread, and reread, and go one layer deeper. George MacDonald IMHO does the best treatment of death-to-life that I've found in any fiction.

Do I gain spiritual insight from it? You betcha.

I also love "The Castle" http://www.johannesen.com/TheCastle.htm From that I learn more, and more, about worship.

And did I/ do I gain spiritual insight from Tolkien's work? You betcha.

Although I gotta admit sometimes I stifle a chuckle sometimes hearing LOTR/ Silm called "canon." Just funny. But I can deal. I;ve got to be careful who I say that around, though. :-)

So... is it possible to find spiritual insight in a narrative which one does not'worship'? Yes. Most definitely.

Peace, --Mark12_30

[ June 14, 2002: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[ June 14, 2002: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[Legolas]

As this thread was mentioned in the chat, obloquy, burrahobbit, and I noted that there are no 'unique' lessons out anymore, and for that reason, everything that attempts to provide insight is only reiterating what we've all been taught (in Western civilization, anyway) was right since we were children. I don't call it insight, but just a reminder.

As for Lord of the Rings - these aren't all the themes displayed by the story, but some examples...
Don't ever give up.
Friends make it easier along the way; stick by them.
Greed is no good.
Sacrificing one's self to a greater cause.

How many of us didn't know of these lessons? Granted, there might be deeper things to be taken from the novels, but nothing we haven't been told before. It's just heartwarming to read a story that confirms these truths to be that - truth.

[mark12_30]

Legalos,

I think there is a difference between knowing something in one's "head" and knowing something in one's "heart". One might call it the difference between "Logos" and "Rhema." What Tolkien (and other fiction writers) are sometimes good at, is writing in such a way that the "lesson" penetrates to the heart and becomes a deeper part of oneself. To me this is much more than a "reminder". It involves character formation on a high level.

You could say that Frodo was only "reminded" during his quest that pity is a good thing; if you had asked him sometime in the Shire before 1418, he probably would have said, Sure, pity is a good thing.

But being face to face with Gollum, and actually pitying him, was learning the lesson in his heart, not just in his head. I don't think that was a reminder, I think it was a deepening, where the lesson penetrated further and further into his being. I think it was a turning point in his life. From that day on he would never be the same.

Peace, --Mark12_30