Of another world

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Sorry, I should have been more forthcoming in my little description. I was referring to the Jewish understanding of pigs/swine. According to Jewish custom, based on the OT, they were numbered with the unclean animals. I can just imagine Jesus walking along with his disciples, and they pass by a pig farm, and Jesus uses the opportunity to say yet another mysterious thing about the Kingdom of God.

I have that conference to hurry up and get to, so further responses must wait. Back sometime soon....

Of course, one might ask why any animal that God made would be by its nature 'unclean'? Why did God make the poor thing 'unclean' & if He did so it seems a bit vindictive.

Of course I accept that Peter's dream in Acts effectively states that no animal is henceforward to be considered 'unclean' as a result of Christ's redemptive act - which, if true, would make Christianity a step forward from both Judaism & Islam, which still divide the Creation up into clean/unclean, redeemed/unredeemed, Creator/Creation. Christ's sacrifice (if you believe that kind of thing) united the broken Creation & made it whole again.

[The Saucepan Man]

Much to respond to here, but I don't have a lot of time. I shall have to return, as there are some very interesting discussion points crystallising here.

This is just to say that, in response to Formy that, by what I have said, I meant no offence to anyone. I was simply "laying my cards on the table". There is much in Christianity (and other faiths) that troubles me and, as some of these issues were, I thought, relevant to the ongoing discussion, I thought it necessary to identify them. There is intransigence on both "sides" yes (although I am not sure that there really are "sides" as such, merely a collection of varying approaches, beliefs, attitudes) but everyone has to have a starting point in a discussion. I am certainly willing to adapt, and even change, my opinions if I am persuaded as to the merits of a particular approach or argument. Of course, in this, I am guided by rationality, rather than faith, as you will probably have picked up, and in this regard there will always be something of an "unbridgeable gap" between those who are "of faith" and those who are not.

Which brings me on to the issue of the suitability and relevance of many of the matters being discussed here on a Tolkien-based forum. Although I did start from the point of view that there is a comparison to be made between the differing approaches of those with faith to a book like LotR and the Bible (and I want to come back on lmp's well-made points on this), I tend to agree with davem that there is relevance on this forum in the wider discussion too. We have, in various Tolkien-based discussions, skirted around the edge of discussing our approaches towards religion generally, and sometimes dipped our toes in. But it is generally regarded as a somewhat taboo subject here on the Downs, both for the sensitivies involved (ie the capacity that it has to cause offence) and the fact that it is not strictly Tolkien-related.

Nevertheless, I do sometimes find it difficult to discuss these kinds of issues, in relation to Tolkien's works, without "laying my cards on the table" in a more general way, as I have done to an extent in earlier posts. I therefore do think that there is a place for a more general religious discussion on a forum such as this and, while it is important to respect the sensitivities of others, it will in such a discussion be inevitable that some things will be said that fundamentally impact on the strongly held beliefs of others.

Finally, for now:

Originally Posted by Elempi

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it would be fair to say that God's test to you, SPM, is simple belief that a God who loves can allow evil into the world.

If I may say so, lmp, that is an extremely interesting, and rather insightful, comment, and something that I will hopefully have an opportunity to come back to.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

Of course, one might ask why any animal that God made would be by its nature 'unclean'? Why did God make the poor thing 'unclean' & if He did so it seems a bit vindictive.

I don't know. My bet is that the pigs in Israel probably didn't mind not getting eaten. But seriously, I think this is best understood in the context of God being a few thousand years ahead of the modern medical establishment, protecting his chosen people from foods that would likely pose them with greater health risks. And the object lesson of clean and unclean no doubt reinforced God's moral law.

There is much, much more to respond to, but bed is calling.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

I don't know. My bet is that the pigs in Israel probably didn't mind not getting eaten. But seriously, I think this is best understood in the context of God being a few thousand years ahead of the modern medical establishment, protecting his chosen people from foods that would likely pose them with greater health risks. And the object lesson of clean and unclean no doubt reinforced God's moral law.

So why does the pig suddenly become 'clean' after the resurrection - cf Peter's dream which I referred to earlier?

Of course, in the Pagan traditions the pig was always a 'sacred' animal, associated with the Underworld deities (see Math, Son of Mathonwy in the Mabinogion) so maybe there was a 'religious' taboo involved.....

EDIT Bit more on pigs in Middle/Near-Eastern myth:

[color=#800080]

[color=#800080]The Boar[/color]
[font=MS Serif][color=#800000]In Egypt[/color][/font]

While the pig was sacred to Isis, the black boar (Sus scrofa) was associated with her brother and opponent, Seth. This black boar aspect was considered responsible for the obscuration of the sun during an eclipse. In one version, he gores Horus, the sun-god, putting out one of his eyes.

Morton Edgar thinks that "the tusks in the mouth of the male pig signifies that it was by the "power of his mouth" that the evil one, Seth, caused . . . (Osiris) to be put to death. In memory of this deed, the peoples of many countries have caused countless boars to lose their heads in sacrifice.

[font=MS Serif][color=#800000]In the Near East[/color][/font]

In Artemis' eastern form as Great Goddess similar to the Diana of Ephesus, she is associated with the boar. Hence, it is more than likely that the bulbous appendages on the tiered body of the triple-crowned goddess of the Ephesians are not breasts (Are there any breasts without nipples?) but rather boar's testicles.

Adonis, a later Greek god whose origins lie in the Middle East, perished by the tusks of a wild boar. His name, which derives from adohn or lord,likely refers to Tammuz, consort of the Great Goddess, Ishtar.

A [color=#0000ff]flying boar [/color] was associated with Clazomenae, a city of Asia Minor, home to philosopher Anaxagoras (499-428 BCE.) He taught, with some similarity to the Buddha, that "nothing comes into being nor perishes but that it is compounded or dissolved from things that are."

More on Pigs generally: http://www.khandro.net/animal_swine.htm[/color]

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

So why does the pig suddenly become 'clean' after the resurrection - cf Peter's dream which I referred to earlier?

Because the death and resurrection of Jesus fulfills all the Law. Like the sacrificial sheep of Leviticus, He became unclean by shedding his blood, and being without sin, and being God, his death renders all uncleanness redeemed ..... if those we claim it. But the resurrection is God's victory over the sting of death, which is sin.

The reason for uncleanness laws in the Old Testament was so that the people of Israel could have kept before them tangibly that humans (and therefore they themselves) were fallen. It's not a matter of value or worth, being clean or unclean, but a matter of condition before God. Maybe everybody here understands that, but I just wanted to be sure.

Originally Posted by davem

This is what worries me about all believers - if the Bible ... says one thing, & the 'scholars' (basing their statements on ... archaeology, historical record, common sense) say different the text is given primacy & the scholars "either dismissed as fools or sent to the stake[sic]".

They shouldn't be dismissed, not even if their motivations are less than perfect. It does indeed come down to a matter of whether one is a "person of the Book" or a "person the World". This is not meant as a pejorative, but a naming of which place you choose to place greater authority. The problem I have with the World is that it is all based on human knowledge, we hope the best there is. The Bible is (as I see it) God's revelation, and that makes all the difference. I understand that you see the Bible as just one more piece of human knowledge, and therefore I can't blame you for understanding things the way you do. Makes lots of sense if you come from that point of view. However, I have found that acknowledging the Bible to be God's revelation, has brought much that was at war in me, to peace; much that had been cowardly, to courage; much that had been bitter and full of resentment, to compassion; much that had been depressive and unremitting gloom, to joy. What in this world has the power to do that in a human life? I don't know. But I do know that the Person presented in the Bible has done this in mine.

Originally Posted by davem

The Bible says Jesus was the Son of God, the Koran denies that. To the followers of each the others are heretics, unbelievers. LMP, you scare me. Sorry, but you do. I know you would never light the fire, but you would create the climate, make it possible for the fire to be lit.

Far be it from me to create the climate. It is hate and fear and lust (for power) and envy in the heart of humans that creates such a climate, not beliefs based on religious or spiritual texts.

Originally Posted by davem

Belief is the single most dangerous approach to life.

Belief is unavoidable. Every human chooses to believe something. The content of my belief is as I have stated in many posts on this thread. Yours is as you have stated.

But regarding my seeming cop-out. I was using short-hand. I am not an anti-intellectual. I was referring to certain scholars who refuse to accept the historicity of pretty much any of the old testament writings. That seems like a benighted point of view, and the one to which I was referring. There are plenty of scholars who make no such refusal.

By the way, there are a few scholars who have written about how the resurrection is the best answer to fit the facts. One is Malcom McDowell; but a more insightful and thoroughgoing writer on this topic is N.T. Wright. He's really worth a look. He's Church of England, and I believe he's with Oxford or another of the major British Universities. But I digress.....

I think you mean not simple belief, but belief based on an authority found in a text as opposed to the authority of experience by means of evidence and proven experiment. But you should know that the more we learn through our experience, and through evidence of experiment, the more we realize how much there is we don't know ... and can't know through these means. One must choose one's beliefs, because science and mere experience can't take you where the questions we can't help asking ourselves, takes us.

..... and at this point I finally come full circle to Tolkien. It is story and poetry that can take us there. Tolkien's story does take us there, and it's a great part of what draws us to LotR and The Silmarillion. Tolkien wrote about real things and we are rewarded by entering into Middle Earth in ways that we can't even write about successfully, and we are rewarded with riches we can't even explain. Tolkien's stories do this for us. The stories in the bible also do this, but not for everyone; not for those for whom the bible feels alien because it has become tied to negative correlations in our own lives that we don't even understand. (up to 116)