The Lord of the Bible?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

Lal, no one is questioning your freedom to post, or your freedom to speak. But the downs DOES have rules on topic versus off-topic. And my suggested topic is simple literary analysis which (IMO) should have a place in Books.

The thing we are NOT supposed to do on the Downs is have a protracted debate about religion. And that is where this thread keeps going.

When Maril had her thread on Shire-immorality ( on a family-friendly site no less) I decided I wasn't comfortable with it. So I stayed away from the thread. I'm aware of several others who did so. I could have gone in thundering; sometimes I was tempted. But what would it have gained?

I understand you have strong feelings, and as I have mentioned, you are naturally free to open a thread to discuss them. But the content of a thread is guided by the thread owner, with the mods having veto power. That's the way the Downs has always been run.

Firstly, how could it be literary analysis if nobody is seriously analysing?

Secondly, a thread of that nature would be by nature discriminatory if it did not also consider contra-opinions. The reason I would not be comfortable with the idea is that I have always found the discussion on the Downs to be rigorous and interesting, and in discussing topics with those with opposing views I find I often come to new opinions. Closed debate does not allow that. It becomes little more than a cosy reading group.

As I've already said, I've also contributed ideas to this thread, not to mention I've had serious discussion with Raynor about free-will etc. But not closed discussion.

And I'm well used to defending controversial opinions I've put forwards. That to me is the nature of discussion, and is the only way we learn from others.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Firstly, how could it be literary analysis if nobody is seriously analysing?

I find this a strong statement. I hope it wasn't as arrogantly meant as it was written.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I've also contributed ideas to this thread, not to mention I've had serious discussion with Raynor about free-will etc. But not closed discussion.

Generally speaking, I've enjoyed many of your contributions, and had begun saying so. But you miss my point. Any thread-- RPG, games, mirth, what have you-- is supposed to be a 'closed discussion' in the sense that the thread is supposed to be 'on topic.' If someone comes in and says 'but was Legolas blonde', on a thread about Numenoreans, it's off-topic. Threads have topics. We're supposed to stick with them.

That's been my whole frustration with THIS thread. Somehow, we've traveled through a host of other threads, ghosts of threads, shadows of threads, and graves of threads, without ever saying, Gee, let's take the discussion back to the old thread (where it belongs.)

The Barrow Wight has strongly recommended that a thread-starter should follow a certain pattern when starting a thread, in order to structure the thread so that foks stay on-topic. (Clear statement of question, and sample answer, with detailed textual support.) That was probably before Mansun's time; not his fault and I'm not blaming him. So this thread was stated a bit more generally (and his questions were being refined as hiis discussion continued. Once upon a time, Downers would have respected that and worked with that, and maintained a sense of decorum.) But I'm not seeing a general respect for Mansun's topic or his questions, not for several pages now.

Instead, I'm seeing lots of desk-thumping. And I find that rather sad.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

The question is whose religion are we going to discuss-- yours and mine, or Tolkien's? And the Downs taboo has always been, arguing about religion on a personal opinions basis-- I.E. Harry's religion is right and Joe's religion is wrong. That is not discussing Tolkien's religion; that is discussing the poster's religion.

However, there have been many (very civilised) discussions on how religion and spirituality are connected with Tolkien's work and vice versa. We have had some interesting, and very respectful, discussions between (for instance) Christians and Buddhists and Jews and agnostics and atheists. THe thread usually managed to stay focused on the topic at hand, which was the relationship of the religious/spiritual item to Tolkien's work, or vice versa.

Tolkien and everything about him, is and has always been up for discussion on the Downs. Tolkien stated his beliefs quite clearly, and quoted from the scriptures frequently, analyzing his religious viewpoint is not particularly difficult.

Most serious Downs members through the years have been able to maintain cordiality.

Mansun asked:

Does anyone think Tolkien effectively stole many of his ideas from the Bible? Examples are the Balrog - Satan; Saruman/Grima - Judas; Gandalf the White resurrection; Elrond - Jesus?

And some answered No. So I think that puts to rest whether the thread went off topic.

By way of what's respectful and what's not, I might add that I have found some posts on this thread disrespectful too, but did not mention it as others brought the topic up more eloquently. Namely when posters suggested that only those who were Christian knew The Truth. Even if Tolkien thought it it doesn't mean I have to agree with that to understand his work.

And I'm deadly serious. And also apologise where I may have not been cordial.

Originally Posted by mark12_30

I find this a strong statement. I hope it wasn't as arrogantly meant as it was written.

If you want to analyse then you must consider multitudes of avenues and opinions. How can there be analysis if all agree? I'm sometimes quite fierce in how I word things, yes. But it is not meant arrogantly. As said, I enjoy the rigour of debate at the Downs.

And by the by, please do post your opinions because once they're on here they can be discussed and argued with as necessary. I've already discussed with Raynor. If other posts are more pressing just ignore them, which is what I do if someone is irritating me.

EDIT And I do mean that. I'd far rather have the free for all than closed topics where certain opinions just cannot be considered. For one, I would be unlikely to ever read such a topic, and in that case I would learn nothing. It was a previous thread on religion that got me into accepting that certain symbolism was there; as I've said, I previously saw absolutely nothing in the texts, until I was shown otherwise. I now accept that the broad themes are indeed based on Christian morality, which I did not see, and that morality is the basis of the morality I follow myself! I am as noted, not an Atheist nor one who merely wishes to cause a stink.