Of another world

[davem]

This is actually humorous. davem, you are, I fear, being as vituperative in regard to Paul the Apostle as you accuse the "critical elite" of being regarding Tolkien.

Not at all. Paul was clearly a great mystic. Unfortunately, as with all great mystics he could only communicate to the rest of us in either nonsense ('I went to the third Heaven') or platitudes about loving each other. Not his fault. The point I was making was making was about his claim to be able to 'explain' the Unknown God. Just because you've met God it doesn't make you smart.

Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but by me." Et cetera. I know it's unpopular and deplorable by the standards of currently generally acccepted, tolerant opinion, but according to my faith, there is indeed only one path that is true.

Yes, & as I pointed out Mithras said: "He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation." & he said it before Jesus.

[Lalaith]

the Fall of the Elves

Davem, are you referring to the corruption of elves into orcs, the revolt of the Noldor, or something else?

the impetus to do so did originally arise from his defensive replies to Christian critics

I wonder, if the wish to see so much religious content in Tolkien's works today is driven by a similar impetus. In the US, there is a mistrust of fantasy within many Christian churches (this was something, as a sheltered European, that I was only made aware of since joining the Downs!) and it strikes me that Tolkien's religious credentials, both as a writer and as a man, are helpful to American Christians who may feel the need to justify their enjoyment of his works.

[littlemanpoet]

That's an interesting thought, Lalaith. In my case, Tolkien's works served as a necessary balance to a very rigid theology that had me mentally tied in knots for years. Through Tolkien's ministrations I was able to find a deep spirituality that was free from the pinned-down-ness of such rigid theologies.

Originally Posted by davem

Mithras said: "He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation." & he said it before Jesus.

Mithras' words were said in the negative. A similar thing was true of the Golden Rule. "Whatsoever you would not have someone do to you, do not do it to another." Jesus took those words, which no doubt were reasonably well known in general society, and stated them positively. Compare:

This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me. This cup is the new covenant of My blood, which is shed for you.

and

Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

[Legolas in spandex]

What you said may be true for some Lalaith, but not all christians are the same, and others may simply recognize the similarities between some of Tolien's works and the gospel. Nothing more. Looking at both, I see a resemblance without much process to it. I wasn't tying to prove something in particular, just that it was interesting how the two stories mirrored each other a bit.

As for what you said Davem, intelligence surely has nothing to do with meeting God . Intelligence will always be sinful as it causes us to feel more important with each bit of information we earn. The ability to think destructs almost as much as it constructs. The knowledge of God however, is a totally different matter. If God wants to get information of some kind across to people, he will do so by whomever he chooses, intelligent or not, for having God on your side would surely call for nothing else other than doing what you are asked. Also, since you mentioned something about tolkien being Catholic, some aspects of the Cathlolic religion are a derivation of the Christian faith.

[Lalaith]

some aspects of the Cathlolic religion are a derivation of the Christian faith.

Eh?

[Anguirel]

Yeah, exactly. Some Shintoists don't even accept the Pope as one of their number, calling his doctrine "suspiciously Christological"...

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Legolas in spandex

Intelligence will always be sinful as it causes us to feel more important with each bit of information we earn. The ability to think destructs almost as much as it constructs.

Eh? A certain confusion between intelligence and knowledge here surely? And to my mind not very logical. If there is a creator he created people to have intelligence in which case it would be somewhat perverse for said creator to deem intelligence sinful. As for knowledge being sinful - well for the sake of my blood pressure I am not going there..... ( especially since knowledge = science, literally in latin - and the maligned philosophy is "love of wisdom" in Greek)

[Legolas in spandex]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Eh? A certain confusion between intelligence and knowledge here surely? And to my mind not very logical. If there is a creator he created people to have intelligence in which case it would be somewhat perverse for said creator to deem intelligence sinful. As for knowledge being sinful - well for the sake of my blood pressure I am not going there..... ( especially since knowledge = science, literally in latin - and the maligned philosophy is "love of wisdom" in Greek)

He actually created them without "real" intelligence and 'twas man that sought it.(i.e. adam & eve.)By seeking it, we put ourselves no longer in the position to live in a perfect world, for with the acception of intelligence, we also accept the ability to know right from wrong and we therefore would know of our wrong ways if we did them, putting the blame on us, and causing us to have the ability to go somwhere other than heaven. Intelligence does corrupt. Knowledge is simply the recognization of known ideas or facts, but intelligence is the ability to concieve or choose or decide. As I said, intelligence does corrupt nearly as much as it creates.There was no confusion of intelligence and knowledge here.

[Mithalwen]

I don't have the time nowto go in to the many aspects of how I disagree with you and since you regard knowledge as sinful I suspect it would be a waste of energy. I suggest you increase your own knowledge at least to the extent of finding out why this statement is grossly inaccurate:- " Also, since you mentioned something about tolkien being Catholic, some aspects of the Cathlolic religion are a derivation of the Christian faith".

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lalaith

Davem, are you referring to the corruption of elves into orcs, the revolt of the Noldor, or something else?

What's interesting is the way the Fall of Man goes unmentioned in the Sil writings until very late on. If Men Fell as the Elves (repeatedly) did it is either assumed by Tolkien, or it is not necessary to the plot (which it actually isn't). Tolkien stated the story is about a Fall, that a Fall is necessary. Yet it is only the Fall of the Elves which plays a necessary part in the drama. Indeed, most races don't Fall - there is no Fall of Hobbits. Dwarves or Ents. Even with the Elves its only some of them that Fall - specifically the Noldor. Yet whole groups of Elves are involved in repeated Falls (as you've mentioned).

If Tolkien hadn't written the Athrabeth, or more precisely, if CT hadn't published it, we'd have no reason to believe that Men Fell at all. Of course, we can't ignore the Numenoreans. But they were a relatively small group, & there is no sense that the Rohirrim Fell, or the Dalemen, or even the Dunlendings.

The Athrabeth is the closest thing Tolkien wrote to a work of Christian theology, & I personally felt that the whole piece, while it works as an 'attempt to justify the ways of the (Christian) God to Man' sits a bit ill with the tone of the rest of the Sil writings. It was Tolkien attempting to integrate his faith into his Secondary world, & makes me a bit uncomfortable for that reason.

I wonder, if the wish to see so much religious content in Tolkien's works today is driven by a similar impetus. In the US, there is a mistrust of fantasy within many Christian churches (this was something, as a sheltered European, that I was only made aware of since joining the Downs!) and it strikes me that Tolkien's religious credentials, both as a writer and as a man, are helpful to American Christians who may feel the need to justify their enjoyment of his works.

There does seem to be a need among some Christians to make the Legendarium 'safe' - ie to make it a Christian work. I have a number of books (Birzir's 'Tolkien's Sanctifying Myth', Pearce's 'Man & Myth', Caldecott's 'Secret Fire', Smith's 'Tolkien's Ordinary Virtues', Wright's 'Tolkien in Perspective' & Brunner & Ware's 'Finding God in the Lord of the Rings - there are numerous others) which attempt to demonstrate/confirm the specifically Christian nature of the Books. One is certainly free to do that kind of thing if that is the kind of thing one likes doing, but I think it is a false road.

Of course, Tolkien was himself prone to this retrospective Christianising if his works, but what we actually see is that the starting point of this process was for him the letters he got from Christian correspondents in the years after publication of LotR which questioned the work's orthodoxy. He certainly goes to some long (& quite convoluted) lengths to convince them (& probably himself as well) that there was nothing heretical in the tale.

This is not to ignore the desire he had from the start to contribute to some kind of Moral regeneration of the English people. Apart from a long period in the 1920's (indeed for most of that decade) he was a committed Catholic & regular attender of Mass. But the 20's were the period of greatest development of the Legendarium & in that decade the stories took on the form which they were generally to keep.

My feeling is that he simply never questioned the orthodoxy of the tales till he was challenged to demonstrate it to readers. When he attempted to do so, he struggled. Put simply, there is no specifically 'Christian' dimension to LotR (or most of the Legendarium), or any aspect of it which requires Christian belief (or even any knowledge of Christianity) to make sense. The themes which are picked out by Christian readers as evidence of the work's underlying Christianity can be found in many myths, legends & fairystories. This simple fact is what throws Christians back on the theory LMP has put forward - that the Myths, Legends & Fairystories Tolkien drew on 'actually' contain the truth of the Christian story (even though they pre-existed Christianity by, in some cases, Millennia), because we were all made by the Christian God & in some unconscious way were therefore our ancestors were struggling to express that 'truth' without realising it. A clever theory, & one that liberated both Tolkien & Lewis to use Myth & fairystory in their subcreation, but one for which a great leap of faith is required, there being absolutely no evidence for it.

Of course, Tolkien came to believe his Legendarium was a reflection of Truth, that Eru was the God he worshipped (to a far greater extent than Lewis believed that Aslan 'was' Jesus. But Lewis knew from the start that he was writing a Christian allegory & was being fully orthodox. Tolkien perhaps only realised later that he hadn't been - all his assumptions aside).

In short, the Legendarium is not a 'Christian' work at all - but why should it have to be - well, why should it have to be for us? For Tolkien it had to be a Christian work if only for his own peace of mind. To claim that is what it is in its essential nature is without foundation so far as I can see (& as I say, I've read a fair number of books & articles which claim to show it is).

[davem]

Originally Posted by LMP

Mithras' words were said in the negative. A similar thing was true of the Golden Rule. "Whatsoever you would not have someone do to you, do not do it to another." Jesus took those words, which no doubt were reasonably well known in general society, and stated them positively.

Now that's a very fine distinction. I'm not sure it holds up as in effect it means exactly the same thing as Jesus' words. Mithras says 'if you don't do X you won't be saved' Jesus says 'if you do X you will be saved'. Same thing as far as I can see.

Originally Posted by LiS

As for what you said Davem, intelligence surely has nothing to do with meeting God . Intelligence will always be sinful as it causes us to feel more important with each bit of information we earn. The ability to think destructs almost as much as it constructs.

Yet Jesus told his disciples to be as 'wise as serpents'. Paul, as Jung pointed out, underwent a very powerful, life-changing experience, but the psychological effect was to turn him from a rabid anti-Christian to a rabid pro-Christian. This was a man who could decare at one moment that in Christ there is neither male nor female, Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, & in the next lay down the law that women must be silent in church.

Intelligence is morally neutral - it depends only on what use we put it to. I have to say that the more I learn the more ignorant I feel. There's so much I'll never know.

By seeking it, we put ourselves no longer in the position to live in a perfect world, for with the acception of intelligence, we also accept the ability to know right from wrong and we therefore would know of our wrong ways if we did them, putting the blame on us, and causing us to have the ability to go somwhere other than heaven.

But without intelligence how could we know the world was 'perfect'? And for me no world would be 'perfect' if I was stupid.

(Hey - maybe that's why I'm always finding fault with things......hmmmmmmm )

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by davem

If Tolkien hadn't written the Athrabeth, or more precisely, if CT hadn't published it, we'd have no reason to believe that Men Fell at all. Of course, we can't ignore the Numenoreans. But they were a relatively small group, & there is no sense that the Rohirrim Fell, or the Dalemen, or even the Dunlendings.

Right....

So, we can take it then, that you believe that people can become evil, that they can do horrible things, live in cultures that do not respect life, limb, or the weak, and yet remain Unfallen?

Would you call the Dunlendings as generally seen, or Herumor, Fuinur, or any of their Black Númenorean-allied Haradrim, or the Witchking, or corrupt King Fengel of Rohan, or Dorlas of Tol-Brandir, or Ulfang and his kin, or the Master of Esgaroth as Unfallen?

Unfallen in Tolkien's world means the primordial state of the race, as intended by Eru. Evil, in any form, is a sign of a Fall, unless imposed from without. Any evil that comes from within a person is a sign of that person's fall, as well as the fall of his or her entire race. Fëanor's fall was his, and his alone, but all of the Exiles fell with him, even those who had no evil intent, such as Galadriel or Finrod.

I think it a very rash and opinionated statement to say that there would be no reason to believe that Men had Fallen without the Athrabeth.