Of another world

[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".

[Legolas in spandex]

Originally Posted by 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".

As for this, I mean some things in more modern day Catholic society, depending on the denomination, have derived from christian society. A teacher told me this. I have reason to believe them, however, they could be wrong. I sahll research it further if you want more proof, but if you simply want to argue, then you find me other proof as to why it is wrong , and I will gladly stand corrected.

As for the ideas everyone on here has posted, though the debating is nice, we must relize we are straying a bit from the point. I am not asking whether Tolkien could have possibly meant to mirror aspects of the Christian faith in his writing, I am asking if anyone else sees the resemblence, whether they agree with a certain religion's basis or not. Also realize that not everything can be explained by human thought. Sometimes we have to rely on faith.Be content on this.

[Lalaith]

Legolas, let me explain. What Mith meant is that you were wrong in stating that Catholics are "in some aspects a derivation of" Christianity. They are not in any way a "derivation". The Roman Catholic church is a Christian church, entirely and unequivocally, and one of the oldest Christian Churches in existence. Furthermore, it is the world's largest Christian Church, over half the world's Christians belong to it.


This is important to get straight, as this is a Tolkien site and Tolkien was a Catholic.

[Legolas in spandex]

Originally Posted by Lalaith

Legolas, let me explain. What Mith meant is that you were wrong in stating that Catholics are "in some aspects a derivation of" Christianity. They are not in any way a "derivation". The Roman Catholic church is a Christian church, entirely and unequivocally, and one of the oldest Christian Churches in existence. Furthermore, it is the world's largest Christian Church, over half the world's Christians belong to it.


This is important to get straight, as this is a Tolkien site and Tolkien was a
Catholic.

Okay, thank you. I stand corrected.

[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 )

[Legolas in spandex]

Originally Posted by davem

Yet Jesus told his disciples to be as 'wise as serpents'. )

And that falls under whether you believe wisdom and intelligence to be the same thing.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Legolas in spandex

And that falls under whether you believe wisdom and intelligence to be the same thing.

Noun 1. wisdom - accumulated knowledge or erudition or enlightenment
cognitive content, mental object, content - the sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered, or learned
abstrusity, profoundness, profundity, reconditeness, abstruseness - wisdom that is recondite and abstruse and profound; "the anthropologist was impressed by the reconditeness of the native proverbs"
2. wisdom - the trait of utilizing knowledge and experience with common sense and insight
wiseness
trait - a distinguishing feature of your personal nature
judiciousness, sagaciousness, sagacity - the trait of forming opinions by distinguishing and evaluating
knowledgeability, knowledgeableness, initiation - wisdom as evidenced by the possession of knowledge; "his knowledgeability impressed me"; "his dullness was due to lack of initiation"
statecraft, statesmanship, diplomacy - wisdom in the management of public affairs
discernment, discretion - the trait of judging wisely and objectively; "a man of discernment"
folly, foolishness, unwiseness - the trait of acting stupidly or rashly
3. wisdom - ability to apply knowledge or experience or understanding or common sense and insight
sapience
astuteness, profoundness, profundity, depth - the intellectual ability to penetrate deeply into ideas
sagaciousness, sagacity, discernment, judgement, judgment - ability to make good judgments
know-how - the (technical) knowledge and skill required to do something
4. wisdom - the quality of being prudent and sensible
wiseness, soundness
goodness, good - that which is good or valuable or useful; "weigh the good against the bad"; "among the highest goods of all are happiness and self-realization"
advisability - the quality of being advisable; "they questioned the advisability of our policy"
reasonableness - goodness of reason and judgment; "the judiciary is built on the reasonableness of judges"

Originally Posted by Formendacil

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?

Depends on your definition of 'Fallen', I suppose.

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?

I think they can just be seen as people who do nasty, selfish things - which most people do now & then. If you're using 'Fallen' to mean simply unpleasant then you're leaving out the spiritual dimension - ie the Biblical requirement of a spiritual choice being made to reject God's will/commandments. There's no equivalent to that in the Legendarium.

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.

Whether that was in Tolkien's mind is not the question. The question is whether the reader picks up on that - ie whether its specifically stated in the story, whether its necessary to hold that concept in mind in order to understand the story. Christians may explain the Primary world in terms of a Fall but most non Christians do not. In other words, just as the Fall of Man is not necessary in order to account for the Primary world, neither is it necessary in order to account for the Secondary one - you can bring the concept in if you wish, but you don't need it.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

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.

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.

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.

Mithras is setting a condition for salvation, essentially salvation by works. Jesus is not; he is offering himself as a gift to be received without condition other than acceptance of said gift.

Legolas errs, I think, in labeling intelligence as the cause of the Fall. The cause of the Fall was pride. Seeking forbidden knowledge in despite of the command was merely the particular act that was emblematic of the root of sin which was pride.

Originally Posted by davem

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.

There's plenty of evidence for it. .... part of which you would call reading the myths backwards, but what I call reading them in the context of the Old and New Testaments. It doesn't matter if the myths predated the writing of these texts by millenia, because their author created the humans who subcreated the myths.

Originally Posted by davem

In short, the Legendarium is not a 'Christian' work at all

You haven't proven this assertion, and cannot.

In other words, just as the Fall of Man is not necessary in order to account for the Primary world, neither is it necessary in order to account for the Secondary one - you can bring the concept in if you wish, but you don't need it.

That depends upon whether one accepts Jesus' words that he is the resurrection and the life, that no one comes to the Father but by him. If he is speaking the truth with these words, than there must have been something from which we need saving. And Jesus was most certainly part of the Primary world.

Wisdom and intelligence are most certainly not the same thing.

[alatar]

To ride the fallen horse a bit longer, when we say fallen in regards to Christianity, we are talking about a decision that plunged the entire universe! into a completely different state. As an example, and I'm no theologian, but weren't preFall lions purportedly vegetarians?

In Genesis God declares His creation very Good, meaning that there is no stain, no decay (no entropy!), no ungood. When Adam and Eve fall, everything changes. And in making a mate for Adam, God provides him a companion. In Arda Elves can (though rarely) serve the same purpose.

As I stated posts ago, find please this Fall in Arda. You might have evil, compare Satan to Melkor, but Arda was already running amuck before humans showed up.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Mithras is setting a condition for salvation, essentially salvation by works. Jesus is not; he is offering himself as a gift to be received without condition other than acceptance of said gift.

Ok, now that's cleared up we can move on to Angels & pins....

Legolas errs, I think, in labeling intelligence as the cause of the Fall. The cause of the Fall was pride. Seeking forbidden knowledge in despite of the command was merely the particular act that was emblematic of the root of sin which was pride.

Well, telling a couple of innocent 'children' not to touch the big expensive vase on the mantlepiece & then going away & leaving them in the room with it is asking for trouble. Any parent knows exactly what their kids wold do in that instance, because kids are curious & always want to know 'what will happen if they do 'x'. The very intelligence they needed in order not to behave like children had been denied them, & the only way they could attain that level of intelligence was by doing the very thing they had been told not to do. Catch 22 or what?

]There's plenty of evidence for it. .... part of which you would call reading the myths backwards, but what I call reading them in the context of the Old and New Testaments. It doesn't matter if the myths predated the writing of these texts by millenia, because their author created the humans who subcreated the myths.

Sorry, but 'reading the myths backwards' is not 'evidence' - its just something you can do if you want. I can put on red tinted glasses & see everything coloured red, but that in no way constitutes 'evidence' that everything is red.

You haven't proven this assertion, and cannot.

It is certainly a work by a Christian, but there is nothing in the work which requires a knowledge of, or belief in, Christianity to make it understandable. To claim its a Christian work just because a Christian wrote it is equivalent to claiming that if a Christian kicks an old Coke can down the street its a Christian act because a Christian did it.

That depends upon whether one accepts Jesus' words that he is the resurrection and the life, that no one comes to the Father but by him. If he is speaking the truth with these words, than there must have been something from which we need saving. And Jesus was most certainly part of the Primary world.

Lot of qualifications there...

Wisdom and intelligence are most certainly not the same thing.

Of course they aren't - they're spelled differently for one thing....


Finally, in support of Alatar's point on the Fall I can only quote Tolkien's words:

I suppose a difference between this and what may be perhaps 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 not held at all) that this affected the ‘World’ in its nature: evil was brought in from outside, by Satan. In this [i.e. Tolkien’s own] 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. (Letters 286-87)

Flieger has commented:

Tolkien borrowed from the myths of northwestern Europe for the flavor of his stories, and much has been written about his debt to existing mythologies from Scandinavia to Sumer. Nevertheless, he wrote to father Robert Murray that The Lord of the Ringswas “a fundamentally religious and Catholic work” (Letters 172), and one might assume the legendarium as a whole would contradict that. Rather surprisingly, a quick comparison between the two reveals some fundamental differences, and not just on the level of doctrine or creed. Tolkien’s is a far darker world than that envisioned by Christianity, and falls short of the promise and the hope that the older story holds out. Unlike the Judaeo-Christian mythos with which it is so often compared, and which tells of a world fallen through human willfulness and saved by sacrifice, Tolkien’s mythos as a whole begins with a fall long before humanity comes on the scene. Thus original sin (if one may borrow that term) enters the world in the very process of its coming to be, when the melodic theme that is the metaphor for creation is distorted by the clamorous and discordant counter-theme of the rebel demiurge Melkor. The resultant Music sets the tone for all that is to follow. The supreme godhead, Eru/Il uvatar, who both proposes the theme and conducts the Music, is neither the Judaic God of Hosts who alternately punishes and rewards his people, nor the traditional Christian God of love and forgiveness. Rather, he is a curiously remote and for the most part inactive figure, uninvolved, with the exception of one cataclysmic moment, in the world he has conceived. The lesser demiurgic powers, the Valar, have only partial comprehension of the world they have helped to make. The primary heroes, the Elves, are gifted beings caught in a web of pride, power, and deceit—largely of their own weaving—that hampers and constrains every effort they make to get free of it. The secondary heroes, Men, are courageous but shortsighted blunderers with but little sense of history and even less comprehension of their place in the larger scheme of things.

Flieger 'A Cautionary Tale

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

Well, telling a couple of innocent 'children' not to touch the big expensive vase on the mantlepiece & then going away & leaving them in the room with it is asking for trouble. Any parent knows exactly what their kids wold do in that instance, because kids are curious & always want to know 'what will happen if they do 'x'. The very intelligence they needed in order not to behave like children had been denied them, & the only way they could attain that level of intelligence was by doing the very thing they had been told not to do. Catch 22 or what?

You seem to have missed the point. It wasn't about intelligence, nor knowledge, nor curiosity; those were just the "accidents". It was pride, not curiosity, that was the motivator for Adam-she to pick the fruit and give it to Adam-he, both eating. Adam-they had experienced the surpassing wonder of sharing their evenings with the One who had made them and gave them all their meaning. They chose to throw that away in exchange for the promise of a questionable assertion from a serpent, whose words were directly contrary to those of the One they knew and loved and trusted. Why would anyone do such a thing? Pride. I could go on but I imagine that would only irritate some of you further.

Sorry, but 'reading the myths backwards' is not 'evidence'

By itself, no. You are quite correct. But I'm not going to offer the evidence here as it doesn't pertain to this thread, nor do I detect any interest.

It is certainly a work by a Christian, but there is nothing in the work which requires a knowledge of, or belief in, Christianity to make it understandable. To claim its a Christian work just because a Christian wrote it is equivalent to claiming that if a Christian kicks an old Coke can down the street its a Christian act because a Christian did it.

Nor would I make hay of such petty issues. The particular Christian author of whom we speak, himself said that his revision of LotR was consciously Christian. To call his statement into question requires little effort, but to prove it requires either unquestionable logic or an undeniable demonstration.

alatar, well said. You've shown me something I had not seen before.

[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.