The Lord of the Bible?

[Lalwendë]

Yes, and I'd like to extend some genuine thanks.

I was just disappointed that after what's happened this week I saw information across in a deeply personal way which was admitted might provoke people. I know one person who has learned something from what's happened, I hope others have also learnt when to wave the white flag. I also know I have! And I might add that my reasons for calling it 'deeply personal' is that I saw posts peppered with exclamations and asides expressing primacy of faith, not strictly from one person either so I'm not picking on anyone. I have also noticed a few posts where Pagans have been associated with demons etc, which will be offending some Downers as I know we have Pagans here, and that faith is also a deeply held one. And they're too scared to post now.

I guess we have to accept that whatever we might think, not everyone else is going to believe it too. I know that all too well as the last Socialist in the Western World (no I don't sell those newspapers).

Anyway, back to it, as I might be a terrier at times when challenged, but I know when to drop the bone. Not least to give SpM a chance to have his tea.

Originally Posted by lmp

But I've heard of the Elastic Universe theory; it is considered the least viable of those having to do with the subject.

Originally Posted by alatar

Some theories indicate (and I can't remember if these theories hinge on whether 'Dark Matter' is found or not) that the universe will expand to a certain point, then fall back on itself, becoming a single point...at which time it will explode blazingly once again into a completely new universe, complete with new car smell.

At least we'll all be back together for a time.

Or, as stated, the universe will expand until everything is a large homogenous soup of atoms, die a heat death, and silence (and darkness) will reign.

There's as many scientific theories on the Universe as there are religions! Which suggests that even followers of strict Reason have a few schisms, and they're not united in any way. I'm often struck by how mystical science can be, too. Ever since I read of The Walls of the Universe, I've been a little obsessed with the phrase (not just with the concept) as it's just so...poetic! Basically we're all trying to find what it all means - and therefore I'm not surprised Tolkien's own views can seem confusing and even contradictory. Hey, we were knocking Pullman not that long ago (still reading HDM and hoping to get some new conclusions because I do love the book, and Pullman is really a nice guy by the sounds of it) but is he really any more 'confused' than Tolkien?

If we do look at what he reflects of Pagans, I don't think it's pessimism or anything like that at all, partly because that's not what paganism is broadly about. He writes of characters like Eowyn who want to die gloriously, of Eomer who goes into battle full throttle, and Theoden who dies expressing the consolation that he will go to his forefathers. Paganism is not pessimistic! Death is a welcome thing as much as it can be in other religions; the warrior who dies in battle is going to feast with the other great warriors who preceeded him (or her!). Ragnarok is not bad, it is to be welcomed. It's the ultimate chance for glory, and a 'good death'. Of course, there are as many flavours of Paganism as there are of Christianity so some may disagree.

Originally Posted by Child

In paganism, there is no ultimate goodness that survives after the end (and perhaps not in our modern theories either where everything ends with a bang or poof).

But there is. After Ragnarok, Balder will return and all the dead will live together and enjoy life everlasting.

Other Pagan faiths don't even have an end time philosophy.

The modern scientific theories all end in lights out however. Even if we all go back to helping make up a new star, (if from stars we came) even the atoms will cop for it in the end.

[Child of the 7th Age]

But there is. After Ragnarok, Balder will return and all the dead will live together and enjoy life everlasting.

Ah, that is interesting....

[littlemanpoet]

It would help us to be aware of a distinction between modern paganism and pre-Christian paganism. The modern variety has at its beck and call all the resources (of thought, technology, etc.) of the modern world, whereas the pre-Christian had only the culture and traditions thereof within each local people group. The pre-Christian is documented as having been quite pessimistic, despite the Balderic resurrection.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

It would help us to be aware of a distinction between modern paganism and pre-Christian paganism. The modern variety has at its beck and call all the resources (of thought, technology, etc.) of the modern world, whereas the pre-Christian had only the culture and traditions thereof within each local people group. The pre-Christian is documented as having been quite pessimistic, despite the Balderic resurrection.

Depends where you get your sources from really. The Romans of course liked to depict the British Celts as a brutish race and their scribes reserved particular hatred for the druids, seeing them as animals compared to their own sophisticated Gods. Yet archaeological and mythological evidence bears out that the Celts were possibly more sophisticated than the Romans in many ways - not least in the higher status of women, who had no status in Roman society. The druids were certainly not animals as they were depicted! Of course then the monks came along and they too had to make the old religions seem dangerous and unattractive. Some things could be absorbed whereas others had to be discredited - that's not just something that happens when new religions come along, but also when one nation conquers another. It's about power, and somehow inevitable.

Even going further back, the incredible amount of megalithic remains that litter the British Isles betrays that there was a highly advanced society with awareness of geometry and astronomy way before the Greeks, maybe even ways to predict eclipses. It doesn't suggest a pessimistic outlook to have societies which could spare the time and resources to build such monuments - it would have been the ancients' equivalent of having a Humber Bridge or Hoover Dam in every village.

And that's just in my own back yard. We've not even looked at other ancient 'pagan' faiths including some biggies such as Zoroastrianism, Shinto or Buddhism.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Some things could be absorbed whereas others had to be discredited - that's not just something that happens when new religions come along, but also when one nation conquers another. It's about power, and somehow inevitable. . . .
And that's just in my own back yard. We've not even looked at other ancient 'pagan' faiths including some biggies such as Zoroastrianism, Shinto or Buddhism.

True indeed. Those who write the history books control the representation.


Just for the sake of clarification, Lal, my comments pertained to Norse mythologies only. Also to clarify my point, I don't see where the statement that a world view is pessimistic necessarily means it lacks sophistication or is uncultured. Far from it! I personally find Norse myths incredible.

Okay, back to the regularly scheduled topic ...

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Just for the sake of clarification, Lal, my comments pertained to Norse mythologies only. Also to clarify my point, I don't see where the statement that a world view is pessimistic necessarily means it lacks sophistication or is uncultured. Far from it!

What I'm trying to say is that a culture which was inherently pessimistic would not invest huge amounts of resource into making long lasting monuments, temples, scientific observatories - whatever these enigmatic remains might be. Pessimistic cultures would live for today and not look to the future generations, not assume that time invested in constructing elaborate structures would be worth it in the long run. Look at the great cathedrals of the world - built by people who felt assured of their future, just as did the peoples who built Stonehenge.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

What I'm trying to say is that a culture which was inherently pessimistic would not invest huge amounts of resource into making long lasting monuments, temples, scientific observatories - whatever these enigmatic remains might be. Pessimistic cultures would live for today and not look to the future generations, not assume that time invested in constructing elaborate structures would be worth it in the long run. Look at the great cathedrals of the world - built by people who felt assured of their future, just as did the peoples who built Stonehenge.

Originally Posted by Tolkien via Legolas, The Ring Goes South

"But the Elves of this land were of a race strange to us of the silvan folk, and the trees and the grass do not now remember them. Only I hear the stone lament them: deep they delved us,fair they wrought us, high they builded us; but they are gone. They are gone. They sought the Havens long ago."

Originally Posted by Beowulf poet, from Heaney, ll.3150 ff

A Geat woman too sang out in grief;
with hair bound up, she unburdened herself
of her worst fears, a wild litany
of nightmare and lament: her nation invaded,
enemies on the rampage, bodies in piles,
slavery and abasement. Heaven swallowed the smoke.
[Heofon rece swealg.]
Then the Geat people began to construct
a mound on a headland, high and imposing,
a marker that sailors could see from far away,
and in ten days they had done the work.
It was their hero's memorial
. . .
kindest to his people and keenest to win fame.

Originally Posted by Beowulf via Beowulf poet, from Heaney, ll. 2814 ff

Fate swept us away,
sent my whole brave high-born clan
to their final doom. Now I must follow them.

Why does the epic poem end not with victory but with the death of the hero king and the defeat of his people, their loss?

Why does LotR end not with Frodo's recovery or Aragorn's coronation and wedding but with the inescapable consequence of Frodo's decision and the departure of the elves?

Perhaps you would prefer the word elegaic rather than pessimistic, as I see you have also suggested nostalgic. Nostalgia suggests a bit too much sentimentalism, from my way of thinking. I will respectfully submit that we are dealing here with your interpretation and mine and I will respectfully insist upon my right to call these mythologies and world visions pessimistic.

Yet beneath the Sun all things must wear to an end at last.

EDIT: Sorry, cross posted with several and no time to reply further, except yeah, what Fea said.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

This is admittedly a rough sketch of a post... I'm still hashing my way through the thoughts.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

that's not just something that happens when new religions come along, but also when one nation conquers another. It's about power, and somehow inevitable.

And the literature that Tolkien loved so well and drew so heavily upon comes from a society rife with conquering.

It's fun that we're discussing this just as I start a new class that's very heavily reliant on Middle English lit. First day of class we rehashed why it is the way it is: looking at Brit history shows a pretty grim life. Small wonder there's all this talk of doom and gloom in Tolkien's work, in the period work; sure there was Christianity, the life after death, the thought of hope, but there was also the pious monk that was writing his alliterative poetry about roods and was on watch those late nights when the Vikings sailed up to the coastal monastery and started pillaging. Life was hard.

The narrator of The Wanderer sums it up nicely with "It will be well with him who seeks favor, comfort from the Father in heaven, where for us all stability resides."

Yep. Doom and gloom. Belief and faith, but also logical pessimism. This wouldn't necessarily mean anything to me if these lines, just a few before that translation, weren't so... um... reminiscent... of something else.

Originally Posted by The Wanderer

Therefore the man wise in his heart considers carefully this wall-place and this dark life, remembers the multitude of deadly combats long ago, and speaks these words: 'Where has the horse gone? Where the young warrior? Where is the giver of treasure? What has become of the feasting seats? Where are the joys of the hall? Alas, the bright cup! Alas, the mailed warrior! Alas the prince's glory! How that time has gone, vanished beneath night's cover, just as if it had never been!'

[Lalwendë]

I'm always interested in interpretations of British history from other perspectives. Remember that the Saxons had the serious advantage of having been the first to write it all down, and they did put a spin on things, much of it involving huge enthusiasm for their new religion, as you would! We also think of hard done to Saxons being raped and pillaged by Vikings, but that's not the whole truth. The Saxons were a conquering race who had not been on the island for all that long before the Vikings began raiding.

They were also not innocent, as genetic evidence proves that they practised apartheid and were quite successful at preventing Britons from breeding. When the Vikings arrived, some of the Britons pushed into unwanted corners of the island welcomed the new invaders. And of course talk to a Norwegian and they might tell you that all the Vikings only wanted to trade (I did, and that's what she was taught at school). The truth is probably that some raided, some traded.

Hmm, pessimism. I would say that a monk in those days, who would be the scribe of an epic poem, would indeed be pessimistic. Putting aside Vikings, life in the early monasteries was tough, and being a scribe was even tougher!

I wonder if we should call it pessimism. Maybe, from our nice comfy lives in the modern age these poets looked liked pessimists. Perhaps they were instead realists? They accepted that they would one day die? And that they might also die young. We on the other hand have long lives and pensions to look forards to, if nothing else on the 'other side'. Few of us, especially those of us who are young, have that acceptance of mortality. Yet speak to my father and he will sound pessimistic - he would call it resignation.

There's another thing - natural English nostalgia. There was an item on the news today about how people thought 1985 was better than now. Excuse me? Three million unemployed? The Miners' strike? They came to the conclusion that it was the same old nostalgia we just love to indulge in. Mustn't grumble.

[littlemanpoet]

Lal's on vacation and I can tell.

I'm about caught up with this page of the thread (I admit to not entirely being attentive for a good four of them, and apparently I did myself a favor ).

I'm familiar, Lal, with pretty much all the history you describe, except for the Saxon penchant for rendering the Brits incapable of progeny. It wouldn't surprise me.

The Celtic outlook has, by and large, been more "upbeat" than the Nordic, as you say, Lal.

Now, how did we get here? (LMP scratches head trying to recall the order of the links in the spilled chain on the floor) Oh yeah, that dichotomy.

Originally Posted by Bethberry

Is there a moral basis for behaviour which does not depend upon an end-time scenario? Is this admittedly very modern morality explored in LotR?

Yes and maybe.

As for the 'yes', it seems to be based on survival necessity. As soon as a civilization has reached the point at which its members cease to be primarily concerned about survival (except for the poor of course), morality begins to alter such that it's based on things other than survival. Such as personal inclinations. People of 150 years ago would be horrified at what we just look the other way from or outright tolerate.

As for the 'maybe', what's 'admittedly' mean? LotR is a very modern story. It couldn't have been written before WW One. Its themes have much in common with the so-called Lost Generation. Speaking of which (this is just occurring to me based on having mentioned the 'LG' above), The LG had only the dry husk of a Christian faith which they more or less didn't really take seriously, they had science, and they had their classical education which had long since replaced anything remotely Germanic until perhaps the university level and then only by choice. You may recall that from Renaissance until mid-way through the last century, it was generally accepted that Roman and Greek is Good, Germanic is at best embarrassing. Then here comes J.R.R. Tolkien who has the nerve to write a book in which Roman and Greek are virtually non-existent and Germanic/Celtic/Finnish are glorious! The literati were not pleased (snicker), especially after a Mein Kampf kind of war had just been fought and won or lost depending which side you were on, in which the 'bad guys' had celebrated their German-ness. The nerve of that Tolkien.