The Lord of the Bible?

[mark12_30]

While I thought I had made my intent not to offend rather clear, I will try still harder. This post was geared toward a particular member of the Downs-- who has been a mentor to me for most of my time here, and for whom I was gearing the answer in a paradigm I thought most effective (knowing her background.) I have done some extreme editing on this post. For those interested in seeing the original (which is hardly complete even as it stands) it may be found here. It is thoroughly steeped in the Old Testament, because of the background of the one who asked the original question (regarding whom, there are few if any on this board I hold more dear, and there are few if any on this board for whom I would go further, to avoid offending. )

Originally Posted by Child of the 7th Age

.....
Middle-earth seems to be profoundly pagan and fatalistic at the core. (There, I've said it!) The overwhelming sense of evil that hangs at the center of the universe goes beyond the depiction of evil in mainline Christian theology. There is simply no escaping it. If evil doesn't get you today, it's going to get you tomorrow! In that sense, Frodo's fate was a given, and the Sea Bell makes a lot of sense. Shippey has written about this--how Tolkien was examining a world before revelation when men and hobbits and Elves were essentially placed in a world where there was no logical hope. Please note that I said "logical hope", rather than "no hope at all". We'd all be dead in two minutes if there was truly no help at all.
...

Interestingly, the one group of critics that agree with me on this are a number of Protestant ones who feel that Tolkien's depiction of evil and his fatalistic attitude are far removed from "conventional" Christian belief. A few even reject LotR on that basis, though most simply point out the difference and indicate their own view of existence is not identical.

...

Getting back to the main issue..... Somebody out there help me! I don't care how many allusions, images, and symbols that Tolkien "stole" from the bible. How can Middle-earth and the Legendarium possibly be Christian if so much pessimism and fatalism stand at its very core? ...

LOTR takes place in a pre-Christian paradigm.

First let's tackle this line:

Originally Posted by Child of the 7th Age

Yet I don't think most orthodox Christians would say that Earth belongs to Satan (a few might--I don't think those would be in the majority).

"The Prince of this world." Yes, most would say that it does. This is, actually, a core Christian doctrine, especially in evangelical, Catholic, and orthodox circles, so I'm certain Tolkien would have also held that view. For details go here

The optimism and hope that is supposed to dominate Christianity can be reconciled with the pessimism and doom evident in LOTR precisely because it is set in an era that is pre-incarnation and resurrection. Hope (in a Christan worldview) literally hinges on the incarnation and resurrection. Prior to that-- grimness; after that, joy.

So back to the tone of the Legendarium. Since Tolkien wrote about a pre-Christian world-- as you say, "pre-revelation"-- it would (by definition in a Christian worldview) be a pessimistic, grim world of very little hope. Apparently Tolkien (as you say) felt the need to write about that in Athrabeth An Andreth. In a pre-Christian world, we (or the pre-Christian characters from a Christian point of view) are waiting -- like Finrod and Andreth-- in the dark with baited breath, waiting for redeemption and light.

Originally Posted by C7A

I would love to hear from Squatter or someone else who is more knowledgable about ancient Nordic ways and thinking as well as to hear from those for whom the Christian element in the Legendarium remains especially important.

Yay! "Squa-tter, Squa-tter!" Your turn, old chap. Tell us about the Nordic stuff.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

I have an odd idea. It's a fledgling idea, trying to fly, but falling out of the nest and hitting the ground hard. I think it needs proper feathers before it'll work properly and be worth sharing.

Somebody... Squatter? Anybody?

Is there a capitalized Importance to light/sun/brightness/[insert name for shiny] in Nordic myths?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by lmp

The Northern pessimism is different, but it still agrees with the Christian idea that this world is coming to a crash and burn some day. The difference, of course, is in regard to what happens after that.

The Pagan view is that the 'end' is simply part of the natural cycle. There may be many ends and many beginnings. Possibly a response to the ancients' observations on the cycle of organic life and death itself; as they saw themselves and their own lives, so they reflected this in their Mythologies. Ties in with Campbell's thoughts on how each religion/mythology reflects and serves the culture and society within which it was born.

Now let me step aside for a moment and ask that people do not post deeply personal interpretations (sermons?) of their own faiths as 'information'. I was enjoying the debate but it so easily slides back into what has already caused trouble and I am feeling provoked (as predicted, and as such, why hit 'send' after this week's events?). One person this week was admonished for their own thundering and tendency to hit 'send' without thinking, and I can add that he is very sorry to have caused offence and knows that to step back would have been the better move. I am sorry myself to have seen this done again so soon. I could have argued against what has been said and given my own interpretation (as I spend a lot of time thinking about faith and philosophy - it's important to me), but I do not see the point, enough upset has been caused for one week.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

The Pagan view is that the 'end' is simply part of the natural cycle. There may be many ends and many beginnings.

Physicists tell us, however, that as the universe continues to expand, there will, some time in the far distant future, be a final end. A whimper as the last bit of light fades into dust. So even in the natural cycle there is a bitter end.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Physicists tell us, however, that as the universe continues to expand, there will, some time in the far distant future, be a final end. A whimper as the last bit of light fades into dust. So even in the natural cycle there is a bitter end.

I saw a fascinating documentary about this a few weeks ago (a BBC one, if you get those in the US? Possibly on Discovery? Worth looking out for anyway!). There are several ages to the Universe and to all matter (about seven). We are currently in the second of these, which will last for billions of years after humans die out. As each age progresses, the nature of matter will change, ultimately ending in ages (aeons?) where all matter will be incredibly dense, and then will one day be nothing but residual energy and then everything will just go 'pft' and 'lights out' so to speak.

This theory doesn't give any kind of rebirth, though one theory does - that of the Elastic Universe.

Though of course my attempts at explanation of scientific theory will not be troubling Stephen Hawking for any time.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Though of course my attempts at explanation of scientific theory will not be troubling Stephen Hawking for any time.

I think that you've stated it well enough. 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.

Regardless, I doubt that I'll be around. Think that the last sound heard will be either "Is too," or "Is not." Whether from this thread, the Gandalf vs Witch King thread, or the infamous Balrog's wings thread, we'll just have to wait and see.

Learning a lot from this thread. Cheers.

[Mister Underhill]

Well, there's also the rather dramatic Big Rip theory, which does have to do with dark matter and such.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

This theory doesn't give any kind of rebirth, though one theory does - that of the Elastic Universe.

We don't get too much BBC here in the States, except for what they choose to show on Public Telly (PBS); but then I don't have cable or dish either. But I've heard of the Elastic Universe theory; it is considered the least viable of those having to do with the subject.

Actually, the dichotomy you speak of, Child, is not at all esoteric or psychological. Tolkien's primary areas of thought are well known to have been his faith and his area of professional expertise; the former of course providing source material for his Catholic thought, the latter by way of Germanic and Northern language, myth, and legend (and all things adhering thereto), providing source material for his pagan-rooted (that is Germanic, Celtic, and Finnish) thought.

What strikes me as so interesting is that this particular dichotomy is not at all that which normally bedevils Western civilization, which is the dichotomy between mind and matter for which we can thank the Greeks (may they boil in dichotomous mental oil for the bequest. ).

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Now let me step aside for a moment and ask that people do not post deeply personal interpretations (sermons?) of their own faiths as 'information'. I was enjoying the debate but it so easily slides back into what has already caused trouble and I am feeling provoked (as predicted, and as such, why hit 'send' after this week's events?). One person this week was admonished for their own thundering and tendency to hit 'send' without thinking, and I can add that he is very sorry to have caused offence and knows that to step back would have been the better move. I am sorry myself to have seen this done again so soon. I could have argued against what has been said and given my own interpretation (as I spend a lot of time thinking about faith and philosophy - it's important to me), but I do not see the point, enough upset has been caused for one week.

Well, mark12_30 has edited the original post, and I hope that addresses your principal concern.

But let me make clear the "official" position on this so that there can be no misunderstanding and no lingering doubts that double-standards are being applied.

There is a difference between stating one's beliefs and commenting unfavourably and disrespectfully on the beliefs of others. The former is perfectly acceptable, provided that it is relevant to the subject matter of the thread and otherwise in accordance with the forum rules. The latter is not acceptable as it is contrary to the principles of this site, which strives for tolerant, courteous and respectful debate. I fully accept, as a committed advocate of freedom of speech myself, that there is a slight tension here between freedom of speech and the forum rules which we apply. Anyone who has visited a less ordered site than this, and there are many where insults, cruelty and the flaming of other peoples' posts are common-place, will appreciate, I am sure, why those rules are in place and therefore the justification for the (very limited) limitations on freedom of speech which they impose.

That said, I do have some sympathy for your point Lal, and my position has always been to challenge any statement of belief which is made in such a way as to suggest that it should or must necessarily be accepted by others, either generally or as the basis for the discussion in question. There is a fine line between stating Biblical text (or any other religious source) to justify a particular point (for example, in the context of this thread, a personally drawn Biblical parallel) and "sermonising" to others involved in the debate. The latter can come across as aggressive and cause offence, which is why I expressed my hope earlier in this thread that those who might be inclined to indulge in it would refrain from doing so.

Mark12_30 was answering a specific question that had been raised and was at pains to point out in her original post that she had no intention of causing offence. Nevertheless, and particularly in threads like this, a reasonable degree of sensitivity to the feelings and beliefs of others is required (on all "sides" of the debate). This may not be a matter of changing the content of what you want to say, but considering the manner in which you express it. Generally, personal beliefs should be expressed as just that - personal beliefs - rather than as assumed realities.

I hope that clarifies the position and would ask that all involved in this discussion bear these points in mind, since continued Mod and Admin intervention is both disruptive of the ongoing debate and time-consuming for the Mods/Admins involved.