The Lord of the Bible?

[littlemanpoet]

In spite of such multiple treatment, however, studies of these issues are with few exceptions flawed in three dangerous ways: by the general critical sin of Sloppy Statements, by a tendency to simple-minded and profligate Parallel-Hunting, and by the Voilà Syndrome, whereby the critic impressively points to something but fails to ask that first of all critical questions, "So what?"

I agree that this thread has suffered from all three flaws.

Originally Posted by davem

Now, what is LMP's point in stating that Christians think of the Norse gods in this way - what is he saying here?

1)This is what Christians think (& as far as I'm concerned they're right)?

2)This is what Christians think (aren't they silly?)

3) This is what Christians think (..... .......) - ie 'I'm just stating it for the record'

The answer to your question was in the post itself: "just a notion". During the time that the particular post in question was written, this thread had moved away from an antagonistic bent (not in itself a bad thing, merely meaning two sides debating opposing sides of an issue), and conversations were occurring instead of debates. That post should be read in that light.

Originally Posted by davem

The major problem with reading LotR as a 'Christian' work is that so much of it is clearly not in any way Biblically inspired.

This is by no means clear. I will present evidence as time allows. .... by tasting directly of the soup, by the way.

Originally Posted by davem

What one should not do is make similar claims for events & characters in LotR, without supporting evidence, because Tolkien wrote the story he wrote & set it up in the way he did, with its own rules & narrative structure.

I agree; but take note of the words I've bolded.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I find this kind of reading deeply troubling.

I agree. It is a foolish analysis and I think this Greg Wright, if presented accurately, doesn't know what he's talking about or doing. He doesn't understand Tolkien at all, if what is told here of his work is accurate (which I don't doubt, just playing it safe).

davem, Mr. Wright may be saying "evangelize", but he means "proselytize". I realize there doesn't seem to be much difference, but there is sufficient difference to be careful with terms. "Evangelium" is a word found in Tolkien's "On Faerie Stories", as many of us well know, by which he means "good news", which is of course its original intent. "Proselytizing" is of course the effort of trying to persuade someone else to one's own faith; not in itself wrong, although no doubt offensive to some in this age of toleration of all faiths (except for the act of proselytizing?).

Originally Posted by davem

Of course, a Christian will read LotR from a Christian perspective, a Pagan from a Pagan perspective, a humanist from a humanist perspective, & a pink elephantist from a pink elephantist perspective. The more important point though, is that even if LotR was a deliberate Christian allegory a Pagan will likely not pick up on that, or actually ignore it in favour of their own interpretation. Hence LotR (whatever Tolkien intended) is only a Christian book if the reader reads it in that way.

Are we moving back into the canonicity debate here? The book is what the author wrote it to be, and the reader's mind interprets the story in whatevery way the reader's mind will; it does not therefore follow that the reader's mind somehow magically turns the book into something other than what the author intended, regardless if it sits in one reader's hands or another.

Originally Posted by davem

I wonder why some people are so desperate to prove LotR is a Christian work. Does it have to be Christian for it to matter to them? Would it matter less if it could be shown not to be?

Who said anything about desperation? It seems to me, davem, that you're the one characterizing Christians in this way. I'm not desperate about it at all. I'm eager to share what I've discovered. And if you want a "so what" answer to that, it goes like this: understanding something I didn't before is its own pleasure; beyond that, I gain wisdom. Life becomes richer. That's what I'm eager for.

On Uniqueness:

It is necessary, for the sake of fairness, to dispense with the double standard such that only that which is uniquely Christian is acceptable whilst all that is required of Nordic, pagan, and other sources, is evidence that the particular fits the accepted description of the source in question. We must apply one standard to both sides of the argument. If we insist that in every case only that which uniquely belongs to a given possible source, will be accepted, we will quickly run aground, realizing that the standard is frankly impossible; not a faith system or mythic source in the world can hold up to such a standard. Therefore, the only legitimate standard is as follows:

Does that which is found in the text adequately fit the description of the possible source?

Exhibit #1: Pity stayed Bilbo

In the Prologue to The Fellowship of the Ring, section four, paragraph seven, we read,
"...Bilbo was tempted to slay [Gollum] with his sword. But pity stayed him...."
First, this is precisely the same way it is presented in the revised "The Hobbit, Riddles in the Dark". Note the passive tense. It does not say 'Bilbo took pity on him', but 'pity stayed him'. Pity is thus something acting upon Bilbo rather than he doing the pitying. What is this pity? Does it have a source? If not, we are left with an unanswerable conundrum, or else not the best writing (passive tense instead of active). If this pity does have a source, what is it? Or are we dealing with a 'who'?
The question is too early to answer yet; we don't have enough information, and must read further to see if any answers are forthcoming.

to be continued....

[davem]

Originally Posted by SPM

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).

Well, it depends whether this is a 'serious' debate or not. If this thread is a serious analysis of possible Biblical influences on Tolkien's work then 'so what' questions have to be asked. One can draw parallels till the cows come home, all true, most more or less relevant, some just silly. Of course, Christians will want to compare their thoughts about LotR & good for them. But

This is an open debate, on a public forum, about Tolkien. And that's when everyone has to be careful. If you introduce a subject onto a public forum (cast your pearls before swine as t'were) you have to be prepared to have your points challenged. You also have to be very careful to distinguish between what Tolkien said, believed & intended & what you yourself believe & intend. If you say 'This reminds me of 'x', that's fine. If you say 'Tolkien intended ''x'', or 'This is Tolkien's inspiration for "y"' Then I'm going to ask you for quotes & references. So, its not a ''free for all" here Statements about Tolkien himself must be factual - & I think you'll find those are the only statements I've challenged. If I repeat myself on this thread I'm sorry but my feeling is tha claims made about Tolkien & his work have to be supportable - we can interpret the work in any way we choose, but we can't just make up things about the man himself.

Now as to the 'rep' thing. You'll notice that while I gave the text of the rep comments & pointed out the first was unsigned I didn't give the name of the person who gave out the second. There was a point to giving them.

Point. Both were criticising me for being 'disrespectful' about the Bible - & I'd picked up that that feeling was prevalent among some members. I then made the point that if I had said the same things in a Tolkien & Shakespeare thread no-one would have taken my comments as being 'disrespectful' to Shakespeare, but as an 'attack' on the way Shakespeare was being used.

I will add, though, that while I also have found some posters' comments on various threads here over the years 'offensive', I have never given out any negative rep to anyone & never will. As far as those comments go they should have been posted on the thread, because the question of 'disrespect' could have been cleared up that much sooner.

Originally Posted by LMP

Who said anything about desperation? It seems to me, davem, that you're the one characterizing Christians in this way. I'm not desperate about it at all. I'm eager to share what I've discovered. And if you want a "so what" answer to that, it goes like this: understanding something I didn't before is its own pleasure; beyond that, I gain wisdom. Life becomes richer. That's what I'm eager for.

Ok, not 'desperation' then. I appreciate you are 'eager' to share your Christian understanding of Tolkien's work. But I'm not sure you've shown it is a Christian work in & of itself, so what you're actually sharing is your faith, & I'm sure you could share with me your Christian understanding of everything from LotR to light bulbs, but I'm not sure that, while it would tell me a lot about Christianity, it would tell me much about the book or the bulbs.

n the Prologue to The Fellowship of the Ring, section four, paragraph seven, we read,
"...Bilbo was tempted to slay [Gollum] with his sword. But pity stayed him...."
First, this is precisely the same way it is presented in the revised "The Hobbit, Riddles in the Dark". Note the passive tense. It does not say 'Bilbo took pity on him', but 'pity stayed him'. Pity is thus something acting upon Bilbo rather than he doing the pitying. What is this pity? Does it have a source? If not, we are left with an unanswerable conundrum, or else not the best writing (passive tense instead of active). If this pity does have a source, what is it? Or are we dealing with a 'who'?
The question is too early to answer yet; we don't have enough information, and must read further to see if any answers are forthcoming.

Well, it may be in the passive tense, but one also has to say that its a bit flowery (or poetically expressed if you will) & I don't think it can be used to support the kind of metaphysical speculations you're making. But let's say Tolkien is referring to Eru's direct intervention there (though I note that in the original version of TH Bilbo's hand did not need to be 'stayed'. Bilbo's hand only needed to be 'stayed' once Tolkien had revised the story - & I note that it has been argued that this revision was part of the 'consciously so' Christianisation of the story. Which would mean that while it was a 'pagan' story pity may have been absent, but it wasn't necessary. When it became a 'Christian story' Bilbo has to be stopped from murdering Gollum. ....I'll leave that one there)

Even if we accept that this 'pity' has an external origin in Eru. I don't see that, while a parallel may be drawn between Eru & God that it is necessary to know about, or believe in the latter to understand the former or to appreciate the moment or its implications.

Point being, there is never a point in the Legendarium where Tolkien refers us elsewhere (to the Bible, the Eddas, Beowulf, the Mabinogion, the Kalevala,) for an 'explanation' of something in the story. He explains who every character, from Eru down, is. There is no need to draw on external sources to be able to understand what's going oin in the story. Eru behaves in a loving, compassionate way, he is all knowing & all powerful & so is God (if you're a believer) but Eru is perfectly understandable as a character without reference to, or knowledge of, God. God may intervene to stay one's hand, Eru intervenes to stay Bilbo's hand. That does'nt make them the same being. A reader of LotR who knew absolutely nothing of the Bible would not find themselves flummoxed by anything in the Legendarium.

it does not therefore follow that the reader's mind somehow magically turns the book into something other than what the author intended, regardless if it sits in one reader's hands or another.

No it doesn't - but we're talking about the angle a reader comes from. As a Christian you will read LotR & find it full of Christian themes & images. I don't, because I'm not a Christian. We could both look at the same sunset & percieve it in diferent ways, because you see the Christian God behind everything, his hand in everything, & I don't. Its a bit like the old joke about the vicar walking down the road & stopping at a particularly beautiful garden. The householder is leaning on the gate & the vicar says 'Well, what a beatiful garden you have. Isn't it amazing what God & man can do together?' To which the man replies, 'I don't know about that - you should have seen the state of it when he had it on his own...'

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

If you introduce a subject onto a public forum (cast your pearls before swine as t'were) you have to be prepared to have your points challenged. You also have to be very careful to distinguish between what Tolkien said, believed & intended & what you yourself believe & intend. If you say 'This reminds me of 'x', that's fine. If you say 'Tolkien intended ''x'', or 'This is Tolkien's inspiration for "y"' Then I'm going to ask you for quotes & references. So, its not a ''free for all" here Statements about Tolkien himself must be factual - & I think you'll find those are the only statements I've challenged. If I repeat myself on this thread I'm sorry but my feeling is tha claims made about Tolkien & his work have to be supportable - we can interpret the work in any way we choose, but we can't just make up things about the man himself.

As I said, I understand your point here and agree with it, so no arguments from me on any of this. I'm just not sure that it needs to be continually restated. There is no problem with challenging statements made by others. That is a normal and healthy part of Downs discourse. It only becomes a problem when the challenge is made in an abrasive or disrespectful manner.

Originally Posted by davem

Both were criticising me for being 'disrespectful' about the Bible - & I'd picked up that that feeling was prevalent among some members. I then made the point that if I had said the same things in a Tolkien & Shakespeare thread no-one would have taken my comments as being 'disrespectful' to Shakespeare, but as an 'attack' on the way Shakespeare was being used.

As far as the moderating team is concerned, the earlier problems arose not because you were being disrespectful about the Bible, but because you were being disrespectful of other posters and their opinions and beliefs. That is not acceptable on this forum, whether you are discussing biblical parallels, Shakespearian parallels or whatever.

Originally Posted by davem

You'll notice that while I gave the text of the rep comments & pointed out the first was unsigned I didn't give the name of the person who gave out the second.

It makes no difference. The point is, they were private communications from other members to you and should not have been repeated openly without permission.

[davem]

This is straying off topic, but I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree. For the record though....

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

It only becomes a problem when the challenge is made in an abrasive or disrespectful manner.

As far as the moderating team is concerned, the earlier problems arose not because you were being disrespectful about the Bible, but because you were being disrespectful of other posters and their opinions and beliefs. That is not acceptable on this forum, whether you are discussing biblical parallels, Shakespearian parallels or whatever.

But I wasn't 'attacking' any individual or their beliefs. I was responding to the points they made. There is a difference between attacking an individual, or being 'disrespectful' of their views & beliefs, & attacking statements. I don't see that I was anymore 'disrespectful' of posters on this thread than I was of say, Philip Pullman or Michael Moorcock in another recent thread. I can see, however, that it could have been taken that way. So, I accept, as I said, that I took a wrong approach.

You have to understand that my approach to debate is to (in my own mind) 'depersonalise' it & just respond to the statement itself. As a statement it is either correct or incorrect, logical or illogical, sensible or silly. This is one reason why I never give out negative rep - because I think it is usually taken as an attack on the poster rather than on the post.

Finally, I can only say that if anyone is inclined to attack or abuse my beliefs they are free to do so - except that would be difficult for them, because I keep them to myself.....

It makes no difference. The point is, they were private communications from other members to you and should not have been repeated openly without permission.

I didn't give any names, therefore no-one knows who said what. In the first case I couldn't have asked permission anyway. As far as I'm concerned they were part of the debate which should have been posted on the board.

Private 'attacks' are no better, or respectful, than public ones.

This is a question of etiquette, I suppose, & it all comes down to what one feels is acceptable & what one thinks is a step too far. I remember reading Jung's works. He would give detailed accounts of cases, but never give the patient's names, so they could not be identified. Further, neither of the comments gave any personal information about the person who sent them, they merely expressed an opinion about my behaviour - so in effect they were about me, not about the poster. The communication, on the point of reciept, became 'mine' to do with as I would.

In conclusion, I can only say that if one is ashamed or embarrassed about something one says being made public, one should think very carefully before one says it in private.

But we should get back to the topic, I suppose. I'll be happy to continue this by PM, as it is a rather philosophical debate - & in this case I will promise not to reveal anything you say....

[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

You have to understand that my approach to debate is to (in my own mind) 'depersonalise' it & just respond to the statement itself. As a statement it is either correct or incorrect, logical or illogical, sensible or silly.

Just a thought: Let's say you observed my children and had some 'advice' for me, as they were acting slightly less than angelic. You want me to hear what you have to say, but as it's concerning my kids, you know that, though I may want to be depersonalizedly objective and open (and may even whole-heartedly agree with your observation), you're still going to engage that part of me that's emotional, whether I like it or not. A person's faith/beliefs may be like that. Surely you know this.

Anyway...

Clouds. If you sit out on a green lawn and look out up at those white puffy cumulus clouds, and you let you imagination run a bit, you can see all types of faces, animals, shapes, etc, limited only by what's in your brain. The information that you have, from reading books, looking at pictures, your life experiences, all provide you with images into which to fit the random cloud shapes. If you've been reading LotR, you might see various Middle Earth imagery; if Disney, then 'the Mouse' may appear. Regardless, the shape of the clouds are the same and you choose, from the set within your head, the image that best matches. At that point you say, "See that one...that looks like Gollum's head." Your friend, sitting beside you and never having read nor saw anything Tolkien, can only respond with, "Huh? You mean the one that looks like Mickey?"

A very obvious point, but to make it anyway, is it any mystery why some see certain things in Tolkien's works while others do not? Plus, when we pattern-match the clouds, our brains are using 'fuzzy fitting,' meaning that the shape that looks like Galadriel really doesn't look just like the elf queen, but, say, 20% of the shape does and our brain fudges the rest. The cloud and image fit closely enough for our brain to engage our mouth so that we can tell the world of our obvious observation.

Tolkien was well-read (I assume) and also, like us all, had a unique life experience, and lived through some times that thankfully we won't see. All of those events put images into his head, and so when he wrote, looking at the white paper like a cloud, surely some of those images, fudged a bit, came back out. Some of the images may even have been Christian.

Hope that that makes some sense.

P.S. I too would argue that reps should not be posted without permission, as I would then have to continually be fretting that I wasn't writing 'good enough for primetime' reptext, which would then shorten the text (maybe that's not a bad thing) or leave it unsigned, just in case...but then if it were considered the best reptext ever on the Downs, then no one would ever know that it was from my pen...

[davem]

Originally Posted by Mark 12_30

A reader who knows nothing about the Eddas, Beowulf, the Mabinogion, the Kalevala, will also be able to understand LOTR as it is. Are we then to believe that the Eddas, Beowulf, the Mabinogion, and the Kalevala had no effect or affect on LOTR, that there are no parallels, that the works were not part of the 'compost' out of which the legendarium grew, and that they should not be discussed here on the Downs?

They all had an effect. But what effect did they have, & how did they work on Tolkien's imagination? There is some of Odin in Gandalf, some of Gwydion, some of Vainamoinen, some of Merlin, perhaps some of Jesus even. One could go very deeply into the way Tolkien's mind worked. He himself stated that he could not study fairy stories as he constantly approached them as a source of raw material.

The question is, did Tolkien 'steal' from the Bible - ie, did he take any figure or event straight from the Bible or not. Clearly he did not. He wrote the story as it came to him & images & ideas arose.

Now, the next question is whether such analysis & parallel hunting tells us anything. Does it tell us anything about M-e itself? About what went into it, perhaps, but that way lies a real danger, one that Tolkien himself pointed up - 'Breaking a thing to find out what it is made of'. Yet we know that Tolkien had read all the works you list above, the Bible, & many more. We know they influenced his thinking. Its not telling us anything we don't already know. 'There's an 'x' in LotR & an 'x' in the Bible' is a process that can go on for months, beginning with 'There is a Creator God in both' down to 'There is a lot of letter 'e's' in both'. The interesting thing, to my mind, is not to look at the raw materials he used, but at what he did with them.

Let's say the Bible was his chief influence - how & why did he produce something like LotR - on the surface of it a work a million miles away from the Bible?

Originally Posted by Alatar

Just a thought: Let's say you observed my children and had some 'advice' for me, as they were acting slightly less than angelic. You want me to hear what you have to say, but as it's concerning my kids, you know that, though I may want to be depersonalizedly objective and open (and may even whole-heartedly agree with your observation), you're still going to engage that part of me that's emotional, whether I like it or not. A person's faith/beliefs may be like that. Surely you know this.

Well, yes, I do know it, but.... Let me clarify my position as regards faith & religion. I would defend anyone's freedom of belief & their right to worship. That is an essential human right. On condition they do not harm anyone else - or attempt to prevent anyone else practicing their own belief. However, I do not respect 'belief' itself, or any particular religion. People believe all kinds of odd things - they always have & always will. I actually like the fact that folk believe all kinds of wierd things - it makes for an interesting world. I will go down fighting for your right to believe in & worship Jesus, Buddha, Allah, Ceridwen, Odin, cosmic pink elephants or who or whatever you want, but at the same time as I'm taking a bullet for your right to believe & worship as you will I'll also quite probably be thinking that what you believe is a bit silly.

P.S. I too would argue that reps should not be posted without permission, as I would then have to continually be fretting that I wasn't writing 'good enough for primetime' reptext, which would then shorten the text (maybe that's not a bad thing) or leave it unsigned, just in case...but then if it were considered the best reptext ever on the Downs, then no one would ever know that it was from my pen...

But if you weren't named then it would hardly matter. Again, my position is that if one has a gripe with another poster one should come out with it publicly. Its too easy to play Mr or Ms Sweetness & Light in the public forum & then stick the boot in in private & demand no-one must be told about it. My reps (all good, btw) usually come with the comment 'Good one ....davem' & that's it. Don't give bad rep comments & there won't be any need to worry about them being posted - anonymously or otherwise.....

[Mister Underhill]

davem, what's up, man? If anyone here seems "desperate" to prove anything, or convinced that his view is the one true way, or determined to silence any view other than his own, it's you.

Since you don't seem to respond well to friendly suggestions from moderators and seem to prefer to handle these matters publicly anyway, let me lay it on the line for you:

1. Publishing privately made comments and private PMs without permission has long been a no-no here on the Downs. In the past when people have seen fit to take private comments and publish them on the Downs, we've often deleted them, as I have now done with the ones you published.

2. As SPM mentioned waaaay back upthread, discussion is not serious or relevant or appropriate only when davem deems it to be so. The moderators of the forum make those calls.

We are not extremely rigid about this; members are free to question a topic or to alert the moderators to a thread or a post or a member who has stepped over the line. But when we make a call -- such as that the "Lord of the Bible?" thread is a perfectly reasonable topic for discussion -- we expect members to respect that call, and not to continually challenge it or attempt to shout down or intimidate other members or otherwise hijack the thread.

I would think that the fact that Tolkien himself was willing to entertain the idea of drawing parallels between his work and his religion would be enough to justify the validity of the topic. In the past we've had threads that discussed WWI parallels, WWII parallels, parallels with ancient myth and fairy tale, and yes, biblical/religious parallels.

You don't think this activity reveals anything valuable or worthwhile for you. Okay, we get it. If that's all you have to say, stop saying it and let others who do find it valuable or even just interesting do it. If you can't see how disruptive your posts have been in the latter part of this thread, I can't help you, I can only urge you to find a topic that you do find more valuable and spend your energy there instead.

3. Respect forum policies and mod decisions and requests. In this case, I'm going to request that you do something that's going to be very difficult for you: resist the temptation to respond to this post line by line, justifying why you think you're right and explaining again why you think this topic isn't serious enough to meet your standards. If you (or anyone) have questions on our moderating policies or any of the calls we've made here, please feel free to PM me for further clarification.

[davem]

I will step aside from this thread, as my reappearance on the Downs has been welcomed by many here & I don't want to deprive them of my wisdom & insights on Tolkieniana Its difficult to avoid repetition when the points one has already challenged are themselves repeated, but there I will leave it.

It seems to me that the question that started all this has been answered already with a resounding No! Where it can go from here I have no idea, but I will let others do as they will with it.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by davem

Point being, there is never a point in the Legendarium where Tolkien refers us elsewhere (to the Bible, the Eddas, Beowulf, the Mabinogion, the Kalevala,) for an 'explanation' of something in the story. He explains who every character, from Eru down, is. There is no need to draw on external sources to be able to understand what's going oin in the story. Eru behaves in a loving, compassionate way, he is all knowing & all powerful & so is God (if you're a believer) but Eru is perfectly understandable as a character without reference to, or knowledge of, God. God may intervene to stay one's hand, Eru intervenes to stay Bilbo's hand. That does'nt make them the same being. A reader of LotR who knew absolutely nothing of the Bible would not find themselves flummoxed by anything in the Legendarium.

This can be reversed. A reader who knows nothing about the Eddas, Beowulf, the Mabinogion, the Kalevala, will also be able to understand LOTR as it is. Are we then to believe that the Eddas, Beowulf, the Mabinogion, and the Kalevala had no effect or affect on LOTR, that there are no parallels, that the works were not part of the 'compost' out of which the legendarium grew, and that they should not be discussed here on the Downs?

[narfforc]

That can also be reversed mark12_30, there are those who can see the bible and those who see paganism, what of those who see neither, those who see this as just a book, so now we have three view points. If Tolkien was alive today which of these view points would he be most likely to favour?. As I said in my last post #389, Tolkien states LotR is not an allegory, he dislikes allegory. The rules he himself sets down are written in his lifetime, and are published for all the world to read. So if LotR is not an allegory it is something else, it is neither wholly Christian nor wholly Pagan, it is a amalgam. Where the problem occurs is when one of either side of Christian/Pagan lobby claims a statement/symbol in the book as one of their own, this cannot and should not be done. Take pity for instance, it is arrogant to claim it only exists in one religion, that only one religion is fighting the good fight, or has understanding of it. When Tolkien states something in LotR, none know what he actually intended or was thinking at that time. I do not mind events in LotR being compared with events elswhere, in other books religious or fictional, I myself see similarity between the meetings of Elwe/Melian or Beren/Luthien and that of the meeting Alveric/Lirazel (The King of Elflands Daughter by Dunsany), yet I would not say Tolkien stole this from him, for this did not belong to Dunsany in the first place, the theme was old when he wrote it. Like I say the problem occurs when people claim things as their own, not everyone believes in religion and it doesn't make their viewpoint wrong, and just because you are devout in someway it doesn't make you right, it just makes you think you are, and I cannot say you are not.

I think the posts on this thread have become sometimes a battle of who is right or wrong, instead of examining the evidence, which has on some occasions been pretty thin. Maybe if posters used sentances like: In my view this may be compared to, instead of The Balrog is Satan, so that the other side could answer with: Yes maybe, and it is also, in my view comparable with Surt, then more of us would be happier bunnies.