Fantasy Morality

[Mnemosyne]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

Yes, actually.

Then I don't understand why you're suggesting that Tolkien's delving into the problem of bad stuff happening to good people, for no reason perceptible to those people, is somehow inconsistent with a (supposedly) Judeo-Christian-style god like Iluvatar, when we have a primary-world Scripture dealing with that exact problem.

More later, including a couple of very important metaphysical differences between Arda and the primary world as revealed in the Christian scriptures. I have to be off to work soon.

[tumhalad2]

Originally Posted by Mnemosyne

Then I don't understand why you're suggesting that Tolkien's delving into the problem of bad stuff happening to good people, for no reason perceptible to those people, is somehow inconsistent with a (supposedly) Judeo-Christian-style god like Iluvatar, when we have a primary-world Scripture dealing with that exact problem.

The book of Job does not satisfy the Problem of Evil either; no biblical text does, and the ancients weren't really trying to respond to that problem anyway. They did want to find some ways to justify, or account for, suffering. Tolkien does the same; I'm not saying that Tolkien is being inconsistent, but that Eru, like the Judeo-Christian god, seems to act in certain ways that exacerbate the problem of evil and bring it to the forefront. Why suffering should exist in a world governed by an omnibenevolent god is not something that Job accounts for; indeed the very reason it does not is because it makes god into a kind of prideful Morgoth figure, or at leat a powerful but indifferent bureaucrat. The conception of God as omni- this and omni- that is one tradition (and certainly the mainstream one), but why that tradition should be true, and why, say, the God of Job should be false is beyond me.

If we do characterise Eru in terms of the God of Job, then the Problem of Evil does go away (we are no longer obliged to ascribe god maximally fantastic characteristics), but I see little evidence to suggest to me that Tolkien conceived of Eru in this way.

[Galadriel55]

For the gazilionth time, tumhalad, a christian God also allows suffering. Suffering that is brought upon the people by their own choices. If you want to compare the two, you must consider this.

But each text does approach the notion of "providence" differently, and I'm not talking about the contextual stories that sit together with Turin's story.

Yes, one text is told through the eyes of hobbits, and one through the eyes of elves, or suffering Edain.

The story, it seems to me, deliberately evokes a sense of undirected fate. That is a very different proposition to Gandalf's "you were meant to have it...and that is an encouraging thought..."

What do you mean by 'undirected'? That there was no power driving Turin to where he got? Please reread all the posts before this one. I remember myself and others addressing this issue many times.

[tumhalad2]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

For the gazilionth time, tumhalad, a christian God also allows suffering. Suffering that is brought upon the people by their own choices. If you want to compare the two, you must consider this.

Wow, glad you have all the answers. The Problem of Evil is a question for the "real" god as well as Tolkien's "sub-created" one. And besides, there is no single view of the Christian god, so speculation as to what he does and does not allow is arbitrary. I'm assuming that Eru corresponds to the mainstream notion of the Christian god: one who is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent. If the "real" god does allow suffering, then he, too, lacks one of these qualities. So your "answer" does not actually negate anything I've said. Why the tone of annoyance?

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

What do you mean by 'undirected'? That there was no power driving Turin to where he got? Please reread all the posts before this one. I remember myself and others addressing this issue many times.

I mean "undirected by providential aid/assistance/guidance". I see nowhere in your answers where you have refuted that contention: the Valar don't count, Melian doesn't count, Ulmo doesn't count. These actors are qualitatively different to the forces behind the scenes operating on the side of Good throughout LoTR.

[Mnemosyne]

Here's the thing, then: if the Christian Bible accepts multiple facets of theodicy, as part of the same moral universe (because all of these different books, even if they have different ideas on the matter, have since been interpreted as revelations of the same, unchanging person), how can you argue that Tolkien's Middle-earth, the texts of which are supposed to have been composed by different people, occupies different moral universes? If anything, it would seem that the apparent contradictions between the tragedy of CoH and the Eucatastrophe of Earendil, make Middle-earth more real than a bunch of books that offer the exact same interpretation of everything.

You simply cannot divorce CoH from the rest of its in-world cultural context, just because Christopher Tolkien decided to publish it separately: it was meant as a tale somewhat apart from the rest of the Sil, but coequal to Beren and Luthien, Tuor and the Fall of Gondolin, and the Voyage of Earendil. All of these were an inherited literary culture for anyone influenced by Elvish culture from the late First Age onward. Argue that it gives a different type of philosophy in Middle-earth if you wish, but to set it in a "moral universe" apart, to argue that reality itself somehow functions completely differently in this tale from any other because Turin's life sucks, throws the whole thing completely out of context. Middle-earth is intentionally philosophically diverse: the Athrabeth gives a completely different, Mannish explanation behind mortality, from the Elvish one, and there's an interesting bit on a group that deliberately turns back from the "Elvish" revelations specifically because there is still suffering in the world.

Finally, the key difference (even beyond the Valar) between the Judeo-Christian God and Eru, lies in the nature of creation itself. In Genesis, we get a world created perfect that was then marred by evil; in the Ainulindale we get evil sung into the very fabric of creation. Tolkien himself, when later reflecting on the way the Silm differs from LotR, referred to Beleriand as "Morgoth's Ring," that is, that Melkor invested so much of his own spirit into Beleriand itself that he was able to control reality--explaining a lot of the "bad luck" things that happen in CoH. This is also why, when the War of Wrath finally happened, Beleriand was sunk under the water--Morgoth had invested so much of his power in it that, in breaking his power, the land itself was broken. This seems to be an inherent part of the metaphysics of Arda, something that can't be fixed without redoing the whole Music (which is, of course, what eventually happens). The point is, this particular problem of evil is existent in the entire Silm-verse (not just CoH!), especially while Morgoth is still incarnate and thus able to work his will actively. Trying to get Eru to remove that instance without breaking the world is tantamount, in my mind, to trying to get him to make a rock so big he can't lift it. There are still logical limitations when an infinite being (and we really don't know whether Eru is infinite or not) operates on a finite scale.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

Wow, glad you have all the answers. The Problem of Evil is a question for the "real" god as well as Tolkien's "sub-created" one. And besides, there is no single view of the Christian god, so speculation as to what he does and does not allow is arbitrary. I'm assuming that Eru corresponds to the mainstream notion of the Christian god: one who is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent. If the "real" god does allow suffering, then he, too, lacks one of these qualities. So your "answer" does not actually negate anything I've said. Why the tone of annoyance?

For one thing, because you simply ignored the statements. You said it, I argued, and you repeated it again over and over without paying attention.

You said that Eru is unlike the 'typical' christian God, because he lacks the qualities that God has. Now you say that the Christian God is not a proper God. So what are you trying to prove?

I don't want to turn this into a discussion about religion, but I think these two bits are important:
The Christian-Judean God: Gives punishment of suffering to those who choose to do wrong. Doesn't randomly make people suffer.

IN ME: People suffer because of their own choices. (Specifically about Turin: his choices bring about Morgoth's curse - not Morgoth. He chooses to ignore wise advice, chooses to be proud and arrogant, etc)

Also, I think that Mnemy has a good point when she compares the differences of the creation of the world.

I mean "undirected by providential aid/assistance/guidance". I see nowhere in your answers where you have refuted that contention: the Valar don't count, Melian doesn't count, Ulmo doesn't count. These actors are qualitatively different to the forces behind the scenes operating on the side of Good throughout LoTR.

In LOTR the consequences also depend on the choice of the person. Gandalf said that "Frodo was meant to have the Ring". But did Frodo carry it because Gandalf told him to do it? No. It's because Frodo chose to follow what Gandalf said. Just like Turin chose not to follow what Melian said.

Frodo was "meant to have it" by fate, not Gandalf or Valar or whatever (and saying that, he finds out from Gandalf that he's meant to have it, but maybe not to carry it all the way.). It's the same fate that does wonders in The Sil and COH, both happy and sad. I mentioned already that Earendil and Elwing, refugees from different kingdoms, somehow just met up and saved the world. Another example is how the Silmarilli randomly ended up creating a balance between the sky, the water, and the ground/fire.

[tumhalad2]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

For one thing, because you simply ignored the statements. You said it, I argued, and you repeated it again over and over without paying attention.

In your humble opinion.

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

You said that Eru is unlike the 'typical' christian God, because he lacks the qualities that God has. Now you say that the Christian God is not a proper God. So what are you trying to prove?

I said I'm assuming Eru has the characteristics of the mainstream view of the Christian god. Got it?

I have subsequently argued that there is no one version of the Christian god (how could there be), but that Eru pertains the most widely accepted general view of the Christian god, i.e, one with the omni-characteristics.

Why don't you read my posts more carefully: I did not say that "Eru is unlike the 'typical...god because the lacks the qualities that God has"

I argued that if we assume he has these characteristics, then it follows that he is subject to the same kinds of logical contradictions that the Christian god is.

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I don't want to turn this into a discussion about religion, but I think these two bits are important:
The Christian-Judean God: Gives punishment of suffering to those who choose to do wrong. Doesn't randomly make people suffer.

That's one theological view. The Book of Job presents another wholly different one. How are you to know the "truth"? What's your methodology?

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

In LOTR the consequences also depend on the choice of the person. Gandalf said that "Frodo was meant to have the Ring". But did Frodo carry it because Gandalf told him to do it? No. It's because Frodo chose to follow what Gandalf said. Just like Turin chose not to follow what Melian said.

So what? I agree insofar as its relevant. I'm not talking about choices, I'm talking about providence!

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Frodo was "meant to have it" by fate, not Gandalf or Valar or whatever (and saying that, he finds out from Gandalf that he's meant to have it, but maybe not to carry it all the way.). It's the same fate that does wonders in The Sil and COH, both happy and sad. I mentioned already that Earendil and Elwing, refugees from different kingdoms, somehow just met up and saved the world. Another example is how the Silmarilli randomly ended up creating a balance between the sky, the water, and the ground/fire.

I'm sorry, this is getting tiresome. What you say is all very interesting, but none of it really refutes what I say, and just brings up so many more questions than answers.

So - this "fate" is not actually benevolent?
I'm not talking about Earendil - perhaps he is spurred on by the same kind of benevolent providentiality in LoTR? So what? It's not there in CoH.
A balance? That's very poetic - hardly evidence of divine intervention.

A la Mnemosyne:

Some people (believers) interpret the Bible as though it is singly revalatory - but so what? I certainly don't. There are far too many contradictions and competing "moral universes" as you say. Just because some people interpret it that way doesn't mean I do, probably because for me the Bible represents the literature of an ancient people, not a divinely inspired set of scriptures. I can tolerate disunity within the Bible.

And likewise I agree: Middle-earth is made more real by its competing implicit cosmologies.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

I said I'm assuming Eru has the characteristics of the mainstream view of the Christian god.

It is a logical assumption, given that Tolkien was a devout Catholic.

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

I argued that if we assume he has these characteristics, then it follows that he is subject to the same kinds of logical contradictions that the Christian god is.

First off (and I have no intention of debating the matter with you here), it is by no means a universally accepted conclusion that the Christian God exhibits "logical contradictions". That is your interpretation. You're entitled to it, but don't expect everyone to agree.

As far as Eru Ilúvatar is concerned, you've got a bee in your bonnet because you don't see Divine Providence holding Túrin's hand and pointing him in the right direction. Why? Is it the duty of the Creator to yank someone back every time they get close to the brink of disaster through their own doing? No. The One may give someone signs to guide him, but it is incumbent on the individual to recognize them, and to alter his behavior accordingly. That is free will.
I would argue also that Túrin did have experiences which should have turned him away from his path. What of the tremendous good fortune that Nellas happened to be watching when Saeros attacked him first? That "chance" happening completely cleared him of wrongdoing in Doriath. When he was told by Beleg he would be welcomed back there, he spurned the offer, saying

'I will not pass into Doriath, and make use of Thingol's leave and pardon.'

CoH

That choice eventually led him to Nargothrond. Gelmir and Arminas were sent to Orodreth by Círdan to bear the warning of Ulmo there, telling them to shut the doors and stop drawing attention to themselves. Did Túrin listen?

'What does Círdan know of our wars, who dwell nigh to the Enemy? Let the mariner look to his ships!'

CoH

Arminas explicitly rebuked Túrin, giving a very accurate judgement of him.

'But you, it seems, will take counsel with your own wisdom, or with your sword only; and you speak haughtily.'

CoH

And what happened? Nargothrond was taken by Morgoth's forces, and all Túrin's pride was in vain. So Túrin never had any guidance, then?

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

So - this "fate" is not actually benevolent?

"Fate" is only so when speaking of what the Creator already knows his Children are going to do. Having knowledge of their actions and not interfering in them is merely another allowance of their freedom to act, for good or evil. If you don't think that's fair, or right, again, you're entitled to your opinion.

Look, in LOTR Frodo and Company have Gandalf to advise them, but in the end it doesn't make a difference that he was a Maia. Those that he advised, with the possible exception of Aragorn, didn't know he had any "inside information". They used their own wisdom to make their decision to listen to him.
Also, Frodo wasn't "fated" to be the Ring-bearer: he was the chosen instrument for the task, but he still had the free will to refuse. That is made clear to him by Gandalf:

'And now', said the wizard, 'the decision lies with you.'

LOTR The Shadow of the Past

And again by Elrond at his Council:

'But it is a heavy burden. So heavy that none could lay it on another. I do not lay it on you.'

The Council of Elrond

If Frodo had refused the Ring, I feel certain "fate" would have been altered, and the One would have found another means to accomplish Sauron's defeat.

So you see, "fate" is only a constant in the context of our own actions. I don't believe Túrin was "fated" to have the life he did, just as Frodo was not inexorably locked into going to Mordor with the Ring. Choices are the genesis of "fate".

[Galadriel55]

Zil pretty much said it all.

About the "views" on God: it doesn't matter what we believe in. What Tolkien believed in is what you're really looking at, and we don't know for sure (although we can guess).

Also, you might see flaws in the "christian God", but other people might not. Tolkien may be one of the latter. Personally, I don't see how letting people make their own choices is a flaw. You learn from mistakes. God 'wants' us to learn.

[alatar]

Very interesting discussion. My three cents:

- Eru isn't the Christian God, as there is no Christ in ME. I think that that's significant, not me just being silly.

- People use the word 'god' like they know what they are talking about. Think about that we can see, via the Hubble telescope - galaxies smashing together! The universe is at least 13 billion light years across. Any god worth its salt is bigger than these. And yet we speak of omni---. Methink that our conceptions of god are merely 'human to some exponential power,' which is not even a jot or tittle compared to a real god.

- Assume you are Eru, up posting on the Barrow Downs about Turin. You - you - decide to begin typing. Your hands respond without you barely even considering them. The muscles within your hands are doing what they need to do to flex your fingers just so. The cells that make up these muscles are interacting with their neighbors to move each strand of muscle in the right way (and may I never see another myosin protein). The molecules within these cells (and there's quite a few) do the jobs that are their nature, whether metabolizing ATP or sending waste products out the cell membrane. These molecules aren't actually typing, and are not aware that they are typing, but without them, no words appear in your post.

Those molecules are made of atoms, and those are made up of sub-atomic particles with names that put the lie to the notion that scientists aren't funny. At this level, you don't even know 'where' or 'when' a particle is, and there's even the probability that particle is an anti-particle, or somewhere it should never be, or even moving backward in time.

Yet these words appear.

Eru, or god, might be like that, and his free will creations just a bunch of quarks, bosons and prideful humans.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Galadriel

Zil pretty much said it all.

About the "views" on God: it doesn't matter what we believe in. What Tolkien believed in is what you're really looking at, and we don't know for sure (although we can guess).

Ye-es– but, in far as M-e "is" the real world, it's meant to be taking place in an (unspecified) pre-Christian era. This is quite an important point– however it applies to the entire Legendarium, not just CoH, and may explain why, for my money, there is remakably little direct intervention by Eru in any of the stories, barring of course the Akallabêth– which is arguably the real odd one out on tumhalad's terms.

On that note– look, I have tried to keep out of this latest round of tumhalad vs the world, but I'm just going to make a general comment here:

The basic problem, I think, tumhalad, is that your case rests on a set of assumptions (bolstered up with a few extra "rules" you've thrown in on the way) that apparently are so self-evident to you that you've never really felt any need to prove them. The result has been a rather depressing amount of circularity, both in the argument itself ("CoH is different in a metaphysical sense because its metaphysics are different"), and in the discussion, which just keeps looping back to the start. I mean, by this stage it's practically become a standard procedure: you make your assertion, other people dispute it, there's a bit of back-and-forth... and then you make the same assertion again.

I mean, look, of course you're entitled to your own views– but clearly you want to promote them to others as well. This is what, the third thread you've started on the same subject? The fourth? Okay, well, it should be clear now that, no matter how compelling you find your arguments, other people aren't "getting" them, and it doesn't seem they're going to "get" them in future. Isn't it about time you either agreed to disagree, or else tried a different tack?

If this sounds harsh, I'm sorry. It really is not my intention to pick on you this time.

EDIT:X'd with alatar.

[alatar]

Note that I'm not taking 'sides,' as no one is quite on my side...

[tumhalad2]

Originally Posted by alatar

Very interesting discussion. My three cents:

- Eru isn't the Christian God, as there is no Christ in ME. I think that that's significant, not me just being silly.

Okay, but does he possess the attributes of the traditional Christian god or not? Is he omnipresent, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent? If you say no, then how can we understand Eru? What kind of god is he, really?

Originally Posted by alatar

- People use the word 'god' like they know what they are talking about. Think about that we can see, via the Hubble telescope - galaxies smashing together! The universe is at least 13 billion light years across. Any god worth its salt is bigger than these. And yet we speak of omni---. Methink that our conceptions of god are merely 'human to some exponential power,' which is not even a jot or tittle compared to a real god.

I have no idea what "god" may or may not be. Personally, I see no reason to believe in any supernatural claims. What I'm interested in is how Tolkien depicted Eru, given that he was a Catholic writer, and whether his depiction of Eru takes from the Xtian god as traditionally understood.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

Okay, but does he possess the attributes of the traditional Christian god or not? Is he omnipresent, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent? If you say no, then how can we understand Eru? What kind of god is he, really?

Maybe. I would say 'yes,' 'yes, and 'possibly,' as I'm not exactly sure whose benevolence we are discussing.

I have no idea what "god" may or may not be. Personally, I see no reason to believe in any supernatural claims. What I'm interested in is how Tolkien depicted Eru, given that he was a Catholic writer, and whether his depiction of Eru takes from the Xtian god as traditionally understood.

Understood. What I think may be an issue is that two Christians, rubbing shoulders for 50 years in the same church may not have the same conception of god. We can take some good guesses about what the Professor thought, but I suspect even his writings, as even they *really* don't depict with a 100% certainty what was in his head - there's always some loss in the translation.

[tumhalad2]

Originally Posted by alatar

Maybe. I would say 'yes,' 'yes, and 'possibly,' as I'm not exactly sure whose benevolence we are discussing.

The only reason for my raising this whole point about "god" was that the writer in the original essay asks the question of how Turin can suffer in a universe that supposedly governed by a benevolent god.

I have, along with the essay writer, assumed that Tolkien's Eru possesses characteristics that are ascribed to the Xtian god by most theologians today - that is, omnibenevolence, omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence.

I then argued that if this were the case, there are certain logical contradictions inherent in that conception that would apply to Eru. Philosophers like Victor Stenger have made similar arguments about this notion of god in our world. Another elucidation of it can be found here: The Omniscience of God

So if Eru doesn't actually possess any or some of these attributes, (for example, he is not totally omnibenevolent) certain questions are raised about Tolkien's mythos, let alone Tolkien's personal beliefs.

Originally Posted by alatar

Understood. What I think may be an issue is that two Christians, rubbing shoulders for 50 years in the same church may not have the same conception of god. We can take some good guesses about what the Professor thought, but I suspect even his writings, as even they *really* don't depict with a 100% certainty what was in his head - there's always some loss in the translation.

Oh I agree, but given that Tolkien himself claimed that Eru was the Xtian god
(in one of the letters, I'll have to find it) I'm just assuming that it was the theologically understood "philosophical" version.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

The only reason for my raising this whole point about "god" was that the writer in the original essay asks the question of how Turin can suffer in a universe that supposedly governed by a benevolent god.

I have, along with the essay writer, assumed that Tolkien's Eru possesses characteristics that are ascribed to the Xtian god by most theologians today - that is, omnibenevolence, omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence.

Omnibenevolence - Eru "wishes well." Eru created all, even the void. How more benevolent does it have to be? You (a being in ME) exist, and suffering is a part of the cost. To not suffer is to not exist.

Oh I agree, but given that Tolkien himself claimed that Eru was the Xtian god
(in one of the letters, I'll have to find it) I'm just assuming that it was the theologically understood "philosophical" version.

You, me and Tolkien may all talk about the Christian God, and even agree about the definition, but again, we are pretending to know what we and each other are talking about.

But I know what you are saying.

Is your question about Turin just a 'Problem of Evil' for Christians?

Turin, to me, was a jerk, and deserved much of the pain he suffered. His family may not have deserved the suffering - especially his sister - but then again, neither did they deserve the benevolence of the elves.

[Galadriel55]

It's possible that Tolkien's perception of God wasn't "fair and just". He had to leave everything and go to war, just to see all his friends die there. If he created Eru to be a copy of his perception of God, Eru wouldn't be "fair and just" all the time either.

[Galadriel55]

Sorry about double-posting, but I have to say this:

Tumhalad, are you arguing about Turin or about the Christian god? Whatever Eru is, he's the same throughout the legendarium, but the perception of him might be different. If he is or isn't a copy of the Christian god doesn't really matter, does it? (I know I argued a lot about it too. What a waste of posts that was )

[skip spence]

You'd have to be pretty moronic (or ignorant) to suggest that God makes sure individual people get what they deserve (in this world or Middle Earth). In an after-life, who can tell, but in this world we know, lots of wonderful people suffer horrendously and die young while plenty of arseholes live long and prosperous lives.

There's nothing to suggest that JRR Tolkien was moronic or ignorant. However, his tales are very moral ones, and typically the main protagonists actually do get what they deserve in waking life. I also disagree that CoH really differs in this respect from LotR, although the providence seems to be more accentuated in the trilogy. As has been pointed out, Turin gets lots of opportunities to do Right, but he is full of pride - and/or not strong enough to resist Morgoth - and therefore makes the wrong decisions and subsequently pays for it. In contrast, Tuor, his cousin, makes the right decisions and gets the rewards.

As to why this is, I don't know, but it is interesting. There's little doubt in my mind that Tolkien's Eru is a close approximation of his conception of the Christian God. Exactly what that was, I don't know, but based of what I do know, this seems a fair enough assumption and conclusion:

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

I have, along with the essay writer, assumed that Tolkien's Eru possesses characteristics that are ascribed to the Xtian god by most theologians today - that is, omnibenevolence, omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence.

I then argued that if this were the case, there are certain logical contradictions inherent in that conception that would apply to Eru.

I don't know how far you can go with it though. The obvious problem here is that religious beliefs, in the real world, are ultimately based on faith, not rational logics, and believers can therefore disregard any logical discrepancies in the scriptures or practices by referring to god's omnipotence and our own shortcomings of perception. The answer to any query can be reduced to a curt and lazy "God wanted it that way, don't worry!"

As for 'the problem of Evil', this is one of the main themes of Tolkien's work, isn't it? Seems like the good professor has wrestled a lot in his mind with this, from his perspective, difficult problem, and he was no lazy thinker. Surely his thoughts went beyond his fictional universe and into the realm of his personal religious beliefs, and therefore his theological stuff is very interesting to read for an agnostic like myself.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

The only reason for my raising this whole point about "god" was that the writer in the original essay asks the question of how Turin can suffer in a universe that supposedly governed by a benevolent god.

The "benevolent" Christian god allows suffering in the "real world", so you and your befuddled essay-friend are, in the usual circumlocutionary manner, barking up the wrong tree. If one follows Christian dogma, the "real world" is transitory, and only a waystation for a greater kingdom. Turin, and the mortal race as a whole, had a separate destiny after death that the Elves knew nothing about. So, if one were following the Christian dogma, then Turin suffering due to the choices he made via free will, is completely within the dictates of the Christian ethos -- or mythos, depending on your religiosity or lack thereof. So, by questioning the nature of Eru, are you not questioning the contradictory nature of the bible itself?

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

I have, along with the essay writer, assumed that Tolkien's Eru possesses characteristics that are ascribed to the Xtian god by most theologians today - that is, omnibenevolence, omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence.

There is no contrary indication that, like the god of the bible, Eru could exhibit "omnibenevolence, omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence" while allowing Turin to suffer for the choices he made out of his own free will.

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

I then argued that if this were the case, there are certain logical contradictions inherent in that conception that would apply to Eru.

Again, you don't believe in Christian dogma. That's fine, neither do I. What's your point?

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

So if Eru doesn't actually possess any or some of these attributes, (for example, he is not totally omnibenevolent) certain questions are raised about Tolkien's mythos, let alone Tolkien's personal beliefs.

Are there certain questions raised about Tolkien's mythos or his personal beliefs? I am sure, given your constant harping on the subject, that it is your life's dream to find such inconsistencies, but you continue to ignore the story in its entirety; therefore, the substance of your arguments are flawed. For instance, there is certainly a contradictory nature in Yahweh of the Old Testament, compared to the "new age" enlightened god of the New Testament, yet Christians as a whole accept the disparate nature of the old and new god. However, when reading the Silmarillion (and by extension the CoH, which is merely a lengthy extension of the Silm) one cannot help but see echoes of the antedeluvian Old Testament resonating throughout the series of interrelated tales. Interrelated and resonant but not an exact simile, in order to create a whole new mythos, not merely parroting the old.

But to question Tolkien's personal beliefs just because he created a separate mythos to lend credence to a fantasy world is absurd on the part of the essayist. Tolkien was a great synthesizer of real world mythos, whether it came from the Kalevala (and many of the major plot points of CoH are derived from this Finnish tale), the Völuspá, or the bible, for that matter. Does the Silmarillion have an inner consistency? Yes, I think very much so, and CoH, which is a part of the Silmarillion from a historical and literary standpoint, follows in the manner that Tolkien mapped out the 1st Age. In his letters, Tolkien states several times that Eru is "remote", both from Elves and Men, and even the Valar in the 1st Age, but that does not mean he is not omnipresent, merely that he has unfolded the "world that is" and allowed for the story to develop as it was conceived in the Ainulindalë.

Does it conflict with the ethos of LotR? No, I do not see any conflict. And that is where we disagree, even though you keep trotting out the same tired series of arguments over several threads. Repeating yourself does not enhance your points, it merely emphasizes that you have an agenda that is neither supported by reading Tolkien's corpus, nor is it accepted by most of the readers who have replied to you here or in the endless stream of like posts that you pile in ponderous mounds in an effort to buttress your precarious position.

[alatar]

What was Eru's message? Harmonize.

This, to me, translates into living in accord with others. We today in RL think the same, and have laws (whether God-given or society-evolved) that show us what 'good' conduct is.

You know, thou shalt not murder, steal, etc.

Why? Because as individuals, we are vulnerable. I think about this every time I'm sent somewhere alone where everyone speaks a foreign tongue. I spend days 'inside my own head,' and it isn't fun. Add to this, having one to watch one's back, help gathering food, maintaining shelter, raising a family, caring for the tribe.

Our survivability increases with numbers, but so does the possibility of conflict. And so some basic rules.

In the beginning, all were in harmony, then Melkor, and a few others like him, decided that his part was more important than the survival of the group. Sure, he might gain, but the group lost (and some even grew silent). Eru raised up other themes to counter this 'it's all about me-ism' of Melkor's. In the end, Melkor never finds the Imperishable Flame, as he's too self-centered, and ends in the Void. Those that follow Eru, live in accord, find something more at the end of the music.

Turin and Tuor: Turin, though never as selfish as Melkor, makes life all about himself, whereas Tuor follows another tune, and brings about a better day for many.

And in LotR, isn't not all about Frodo, or Aragorn, or Gandalf, but their selfless relationships with others (Sam, Faramir, Eomer, the Fellowship, etc).

Okay, so that was a little rambling.

[Dakêsîntrah]

Excellent topic, Tumhalad!

I am a person who is profoundly interested in world mythology and comparative religion; I also happen to love Tolkien's Midgard - which, in my view is yet another myth adaptation of the real world. So I chanced upon your thread and devoured its contents. Some of you make good points; others, not so much.


First, let me start with my concept of myth, by my quoting an excerpt from modern day mytheographer, Allan Alford in his "Myth And Religion":

It is widely presumed that myth and religion are two different things. To the extent that religion involves a whole array of non-myth elements – a moral code, a faith in a supreme being, and an obedience to the Church – this is true. However, if we focus on the primary element in religion, namely the Supreme Being (or God), then religion and myth become synonymous. Indeed, the conclusion of life-long study of religion is that God is actually the personification of myth.

God – the personification of myth? The idea will sound weird to modern ears, and many people will think that I am denigrating the Supreme Being. After all, the word ‘myth’, in modern linguistics, is held to be synonymous with a fiction or a lie. But this is not my definition of myth. Far from it.

In fact, the word ‘myth’ derives from the ancient Greek word muthos, which meant simply an ‘utterance’ or a ‘traditional tale’. And these utterances, or traditional tales – usually concerning Gods and heroes – were generally considered to be true stories.

But in what sense can a myth be true?

For the past two centuries, mythologists have been fixated by the idea of historical truth. They have sought to understand ancient myths as poetic portrayals of events in human history. But this is a fundamental mistake.

Prior to Greek times, ancient civilisations had very little interest in history as we understand that term. Rather than seeing the past in terms of a linear history, they saw it as a repeating pattern of cycles – the day, the month, the year, the reign of the king, and the periods of the planets and stars. At the beginning of each of these cycles, the creation was renewed and time began again. As for human beings, their machinations served only to validate this great cosmic mystery play. As Mircea Eliade writes in 'The Myth of the Eternal Return':

[The past is but a prefiguration of the future. No event is irreversible and no transformation is final. In a certain sense, it is even possible to say that nothing new happens in the world, for everything is but the repetition of the same primordial archetypes; this repetition, by actualizing the mythical moment when the archetypal gesture was revealed, constantly maintains the world in the same auroral instant of the beginnings.]

History and historical truth were thus alien concepts to the ancient mind. For the ancient myth-makers, truth lay rather in the primordial cosmic drama in which the Universe had been created and brought to life. The only true story in town was the myth of the genesis of the earth, the heavens, and all living things. In short, the myth of creation.

All ancient civilisations had their creation myths. The stories in the Old Testament Book of Genesis are but a reflection of much older myths that were told in ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia from at least 3000 BC. Indeed, the further back we go, the more dominant the creation myth becomes – to an extent that has yet to be fully apprehended by scholars.

Behind the creation myth lies the Supreme Being, who was worshipped by the ancients under a variety of names and guises. This Great God – or indeed Goddess – was the Creator of all things, and thus the cognate of Religion in the sense that He-She bound mankind back to its origins (the word ‘religion’ derives from the Latin religare ‘to bind back’).

Who, or what, was this Supreme Being? In what sense was He-She the Creator of the Universe and mankind?

Put out of your mind all those images of God as an Old Man with a beard. That’s just absurd. Consider instead the evidence from the world’s oldest civilisations – Egypt and Mesopotamia. Here, in the creation myths, the Great God, or Goddess, personifies the formative cosmos. He, or she, is identified with the death of the old cosmos; with the fall of the sky and the seeding of the earth; with the chaos of the primeval earth and waters; with the separation of the heavens from the earth; and with the new-born Sun, Moon, and stars. In short, the God and Goddess personify the entire myth of creation and the entire created Universe.

Here lies the key to the modern concept of God. As the Creator, God by definition becomes his creation. He becomes a Sun-god, a Moon-god, a star-god, a nature-god, a god of this river and that river, a god of this tribe and that tribe. But He is always much more than his visible manifestations, and he is mysteriously greater than the sum of his parts. His pure essence is thus said to be the Divine Soul, or Spirit, or Intelligence. In this aetheric and quintessential form, God stirred himself to life, created the Universe, filled it, and surrounded it. Thus He became immortal, invisible, omniscient, and omnipresent – visible and yet invisible, closer than we can possibly conceive, and yet further away than we can possibly imagine.

So, God is not a person. Rather, he is a personification. He personifies the ‘true’ story of the creation of the Universe. In this sense, God is the personification of myth.

Now, the ancients worshipped God under many different names and guises, since each region or city had its own local traditions. Thus in Egypt the Creator-God was known variously as Atum, Re, Khnum, Amun, Osiris, Horus, and Thoth, whilst in Mesopotamia He was known variously as Anu, Enlil, Enki, Utu, and Nannar. And for each God there was a corpus of myth which described how he had created the Universe. The same went for the Goddess too, who was known in Egypt as Hathor, Isis and Neit, and in Mesopotamia as Ninharsag, Mami and Inanna. This is only to mention the most popular names.

But behind this multiplicity there was only ever One God, One Goddess, and One Creation – by definition. The ancients knew this well, and would have much to say about the modern-day bickering between the devotees of Judaeo-Christianity and Islam.

Here lies the key to the future unity of all Gods and all religions.

God did not appear with the establishment of Judaism, nor with the establishment of Islam, nor with the earlier cults of Egypt and Mesopotamia. No, as the Creator of the Universe, God existed from the beginning of time, by definition.

By knowledge of this eternal, ever-unchanging axiom, the chasm between pagan religions and modern religions can be bridged, and the scattered ‘truths’ of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam can be reunited into the One Great Truth of the One Great God – a God who by definition cannot be the God of one tribe or the other but must be the God of all humanity.

This principle is straightforward enough, and many people intuitively will know it to be the truth.

The difficult part, though, is to resolve specific points of disagreement between the religions. For example, was Jesus Christ the Son of God, as Christianity maintains, or just another prophet, as Islam maintains?

To do this, there is only one way forward and it involves going backwards – into the past. If we can understand how religion evolved over the millennia, then we stand our best chance of reconciling the modern-day differences.

------------------------------------------------------

Tolkien's mythology adaptation stretches back even further into history than people usually give him credit for. In fact, his mythos comes from pre-history, when we can't even be sure the ancients had established a set world calendar that was permanent for many ages to come.

The best we can do is go back to ancient Sumeria and start from there. It is from the land of Abraham (the father of Tolkien's professed Catholic Christianity) that we find the original Elves, most especially. Herein we find,

~The Ring Lords~

From the earliest of Sumerian and Scythian times, over 5,000 years ago, the abiding symbol of wholeness, unity and eternity was the Ring. In those days, the kings-of-kings were also styled Ring Lords by virtue of their Rings of office which symbolised divinely inspired justice. They were golden circlets which, as time progressed, were often worn as head-bands - ultimately to become crowns.

As depicted in numerous reliefs, the Ring was a primary device of the Anunnage gods, who were recorded as having descended into ancient Sumer and were responsible for the establishment of municipal government and kingly practice. In view of this, it is of particular relevance that, when the author J.R.R. Tolkien was asked, in the 1960s, about the Middle-earth environment of his book trilogy The Lord of the Rings, he said that he perceived its setting to relate to about 4000 BC.

Tolkien was an Oxford professor of Anglo-Saxon language and, in this regard, the root of his popular tale was extracted directly from Saxon folklore. Indeed, the early Saxon god Wotan (Odin) was said to have ruled the Nine Worlds of the Rings - having the ninth (the One Ring) to govern eight others.

As the generations passed from those ancient times, the ideal of dynastic kingship spread through the Mediterranean lands into the Balkans, the Black Sea regions and Europe. But, in the course of this, the crucial essence of the old wisdom was diluted and this gave rise to dynasties that were not of the original kingly race. Instead, many were unrelated warrior chiefs who gained their thrones by might of the sword.

The oldest complete version of the Ring Cycle comes from the Norse mythology of the Volsunga Saga. Compiled from more than forty separate legends, this Icelandic tale relates to the god Odin, to the kingdom of the Nine Worlds and to a dark forest called Mirkwood - a name later repeated by Tolkien in The Lord of the Rings. It tells of how Prince Sigmund of the Volsung dynasty is the only warrior able to pull the great sword of Odin from a tree in which the god had driven it to its hilt - as replicated in the Arthurian story of the sword and the stone. Additionally, we learn of the water-dwarf Andarvi, whose magical One Ring of red-gold could weave great wealth and power for its master - precisely as depicted in all related Ring legends.

Contemporary with the Volsunga Saga was a similar tale which appeared in and around Burgundy in the 1200s: a German epic called The Nibelungenlied. In this account, which follows a similar path, the hero is called Siegfried and the tale is given a knightly gloss of the Gothic era, while unfortunately losing some of the pagan enchantment of the Northern legend.

In ancient Sumer, the Anunnage were said to have governed by way of a Grand Assembly of nine Councillors who sat at Nippur. The nine consisted of eight members (seven males and a female), who held the Rings of divine justice, along with their president, Anu, who held the One Ring to bind them all. This conforms precisely with the nine kingdoms of the Volsunga Saga, which cites Odin as the ultimate presidential Ring Lord.

In recent times there have been some astonishing archaeological discoveries which now prove that Sumerian was not the first written language as is commonly portrayed. Also that the Sumerian culture (generally held to be the earliest cradle of civilization) had an older origin in the Balkans, specifically in Transylvania and the Carpathian regions.

The earliest type of Mesopotamian writing, which preceded the strictly wedge-shaped Sumerian cuneiform, is known to be a little over 5,500 years old. It was found at Uruk in Sumer and at Jemdat Nasr, between Baghdad and Babylon, where the Oxford Assyriologist, Stephen Langdon, made numerous important discoveries in 1925. But, around thirty years ago a more significant find was subsequently made beneath the ancient village of Tartaria in Romania. Here were found clay tablets inscribed with a form of script which Carbon-14 dating and strata positioning have revealed to be more than 1,000 years older than the earliest Sumerian writings.

That was not the only surprise, however, for the Tartarian symbols were practically identical to those which emerged later in Mesopotamia. - and it was discovered that the very name of Ur (the capital of Sumer) came from the Scythian word Ur, meaning Lord. Not only that, but the name of Enki is clearly defined on one tablet in an identical form to that subsequently used in Sumer. Hence, it became very apparent that the Anunnage culture was far more widespread than had previously been thought.

Another significant discovery was made high in the Altai Mountains between Siberia and Mongolia. There, preserved by the severe cold since the distant BC years, was found a Scythian burial mound, where the bodies of ancient chieftains, together with their horses, clothing and possessions had all been remarkably preserved from decay.

These were the people who, in the Black Sea steppe lands, first domesticated the horse in about 4000 BC. Consequently, the extent of their travels through the centuries and their influence on the various indigenous cultures is most impressive. It ranges geographically from Hungary and Romania, north into the Russian steppes and Siberia, eastwards across the Ukraine and Anatolia (modern Turkey), south into Syria and Mesopotamia, and still further east into Mongolia, Tibet and the Chinese border country.

Digging first commenced at the Altai site in 1927, but it was not until 1947 that the richest mound containing six separate tombs was discovered and the various bodies found. They were preserved not only by the extreme cold of the region, but also by skilled embalming. There was hair on their heads, but their brains had been removed, along with other internal organs (just as in Egyptian mummification).

Some way south of the Altai site, in the northern foothills of the Himalayas, are the centres of Hami, Loulan and Churchen. It was close to these places, nestling in the Tarim Basin below Mongolia, to the north of Tibet, that a number of similar discoveries were made as recently as 1994. Unlike the intensely cold climate of the Altai Mountains, this lower region of the Central Asian desert is quite different, as a result of which the bodies were preserved in the perfectly dry air, coupled with moisture-absorbing salt beds and, again, expert mummification.

Dated at around 4,000 years old, these interred men, women and children have undermined all the established history teaching of the area, which previously stated that no one of their type arrived there until about 120 BC. But there they were from 2,000 years earlier at the time of Abraham, when Egyptian pharaohs such as Tutankhamun and Ramesses the Great were more than 500 years into the future. These mummies, although contemporary with the mummies of ancient Egypt, are actually far better preserved.

Like their Romanian counterparts, the Himalayan mummies are of impressive stock, with light skin, auburn hair and pale eyes. The leather and woollen clad men stood at least 6-feet, 6-inches and upwards, while even the women were over 6-feet tall. Undoubtedly, these forebears of the Gaelic High Kings were among the most formidable warriors of their time, and their use of finely woven tartan cloth serves as identifiable proof of the plaid designs which they eventually brought into Ireland and Scotland.

From the 1st century, the Ring Lord culture fell into decline when various Roman emperors decreed that the Messianic heirs (the descendants of Jesus and his family) should be hunted down and put to the sword. This fact was recorded by eminent chroniclers such as Hegesippus, Africanus and Eusebius. Then, once the Roman Church was operative from the 4th century, the sacred dynasty was forever damned by the bishops.

It was this formal damnation which led to such events as the Albigensian Crusade in 1209 and the subsequent Catholic Inquisitions - for these brutal assaults by the papal machine were specifically directed against the upholders and champions of the original concept of Grail kingship, as against the style of pseudo-monarchy which had been implemented by the Bishops of Rome.

In practical terms, Church kingship has prevailed from the 8th century and has continued, through the ages, to the present day. But the fact is that, under strict terms of sovereign practice, all such monarchies and their affiliated governments have been invalid.

Church kingship is precisely that with which we have become so familiar. It applies to all monarchs who achieve their regnal positions by way of Church coronation by the Pope or other Christian leader (in Britain, by the Archbishop of Canterbury). Previously, in terms of true kingship, there was no necessity for coronation because kingly and queenly inheritance were always regarded as being 'in the blood'.

The change was made possible by way of a text called the Donation of Constantine - a document which led to just about every social injustice that has since been experienced in the Christian world. When the Donation made its first appearance in 751, it was alleged to have been written by Emperor Constantine some 400 years earlier, although strangely never produced in the interim. It was even dated and carried his supposed signature. What the document proclaimed was that the Emperor's appointed Pope was Christ's personally elected representative on Earth. He had the power to 'create' kings as his subordinates since his palace ranked above all the palaces in the world.

The provisions of the Donation were enacted by the Vatican, whereupon the Merovingian Kings of the Grail bloodline in Gaul were deposed and a whole new puppet-dynasty was supplemented by way of a family of hitherto mayors. They were dubbed Carolingians and their only king of any significance was the legendary Charlemagne. By way of this strategy, the whole nature of monarchy changed from being an office of community guardianship to one of absolute rule and, by virtue of this monumental change, the long-standing code of princely service was forsaken as European kings became servants of the Church instead of being servants of the people.

The fact is, however, that over 500 years ago in the Renaissance era, proof emerged that the Donation was an outright forgery. Its New Testament references relate to the Latin Vulgate Bible - an edition translated and compiled by St. Jerome, who was not born until AD 340, some 26 years after Constantine supposedly signed the document! Apart from that, the language of the Donation, with its numerous anachronisms in form and content, is that of the 8th century and bears no relation to the writing style of Constantine's day. But the truly ridiculous aspect is that the Donation's overwhelming dictate, which cemented the Pope as the supreme spiritual and temporal head of Christendom, has prevailed regardless.

Victimized prior to the formal Church Inquisition in the Middle Ages were the Cathars of the Languedoc region in the South of France. The Cathars were fully conversant with the Ring Lord culture and, in accordance with tradition, referred to the Messianic bloodline as the Elven Race, venerating them as the Shining Ones.

In the language of old Provence, a female elf was an 'albi', and Albi was the name given to the main Cathar centre in Languedoc. This was in deference to the matrilinear heritage of the Grail dynasty, for the Cathars were supporters of the Albi-gens - the elven bloodline which had descended through the Grail queens such as Lilith, Miriam, Bathsheba and Mary Magdalene. It was for this reason that, when Simon de Montfort and the armies of Pope Innocent III decimated the region from 1209, it was called the Albigensian Crusade.

The concept of calling the original princely race the Shining Ones, while also defining them as 'elves', dates well back into ancient Bible times and can be traced into Mesopotamia and Palestine. The ancient word El, which was used to identify a god or lofty-one (as in El Elyon and El Shaddai) actually meant Shining in old Mesopotamian Sumer. To the north in Babylonia, the derivative Ellu meant Shining One, while in Saxony and Britain it became Elf.

The concept of fairies was born directly from the Ring Lord culture and, deriving from the Greek word 'phare', the term related to a Great House, from which also stemmed the designation 'pharaoh'. In the Gaelic world, certain royal families were said to carry the fairy blood - that is to say, the fate or destiny of the Grail bloodline and of humankind at large. Meanwhile, the elf-maidens of the Albi-gens were the designated guardians of the earth, starlight and forest. It is for these reasons that fairies and elves have so often been portrayed as shoemakers and lamplighters, for the fairy cobblers made the shoes which measured the steps of life, while the Shining Ones of the elven race were there to light the way.

In national terms (although fairies present a widespread image), they are particularly associated with Ireland, where they are epitomized by the ancient people of the Tuatha Dé Danann. This formidable king tribe was, nevertheless, mythologized by the Christian monks, who rewrote the majority of Irish history to suit their own Church's vested interest in Ireland.

From a base of the monastic texts, which arose onwards from medieval times, it is generally stated that the Tuatha Dé Danann were the supernatural tribe of the agricultural goddess Danaë of Argos, but their true name (rendered in its older form) was Tuadhe d'Anu - the people (or tribe) of Anu, the great sky god of the Anunnage.

Onwards from the year 751, the Church sought all possible measures to diminish the status of any royal strain emanating from the original Ring Lords so that the fraudulent Donation of Constantine could be brought into play. Henceforth, only the subjugative Church could determine who was a king, while the elves and fairies of the Albi-gens were manoeuvred from the forefront of history into a realm of apparent fantasy and legend.

Settling in Ireland from about 800 BC, the noble Tuadhe d'Anu hailed from the Central European lands of Scythia, which stretched from the Carpathian mountains and Transylvanian Alps, across to the Russian River Don. They were strictly known as the Royal Scyths and they were said to be the masters of a transcendent intellect called the Sidhé, which was known to the druids as the Web of the Wise.
1Share

As the Church rose to power, so the underground stream, which supported the Ring Lord culture, found strategic methods of preserving the traditions of the royal bloodline. In the course of this, the fairy tale concept was born - stories which were not unlike many of the parables inherent in the New Testament Gospels. They were likewise contrived 'for those with ears to hear', while others among the uninitiated would perceive them as no more than fanciful entertainment.

A focal message built into these fairy tales was an understanding of the importance of perpetuating the family line, regardless of the power of the bishops and the Church's puppet kings. The whole scenario was presented, time after time, as if it were a struggling nightmare, wherein the female (the elf-maiden who carried the essence of the strain) was out of reach of the prince, so that his torturous quest to find her was akin to the quest for the Holy Grail itself.

Consequently, many of the tales which emanated from this base were stories of lost brides and usurped kingship, based upon the Church's subjugation of the Grail bloodline. The fairy tale ideal was essentially geared to relate the truth of these persecutions. They were allegorical accounts of the predicament of the Messianic family, whose fairies and elves (having been manoeuvred from the mortal plane of orthodoxy and status quo) were confined to a contrived otherworldly existence.

They emerged as tales of valiant princes who were turned into frogs; of swan knights who roamed the wasteland, and of Grail princesses locked in towers, or put to sleep for hundreds of years. In the course of their persecution, the elf-maidens were pricked with bodkins, fed with poisoned apples, subjected to spells or condemned to servitude, while their champions swam great lakes, battled through thickets and scaled mighty towers to secure and protect the matrilinear heritage of the Albi-gens.

These romantic legends include such well-known stories as the Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella, Snow White and Rapunzel. In all cases, the underlying theme is the same, with the princess kept (through drugging, imprisonment or some form of restraint) out of reach of the prince, who has to find her and release her in order to preserve the dynasty and perpetuate the line.

It was during the period of France's Carolingian dynasty that the seeds of most of these popular stories were planted, and it is because of the inherent truths which lie behind the stories that we find them so naturally appealing. Some academics argue that fairy tales survive because they are often based upon a rags-to-riches doctrine, but this is not the case. They survive because deep within our psyche is an inherent, inbred awareness that the Grail (symbolised by the Lost Bride) has to be found if the wasteland is to return to fertility.

A primary feature of the traditional folklore related to the Ring and Grail quests is that it embodies a nominal terminology that was historically applicable to the Messianic dynasts. As cited, the terms fairy and elf each related to certain castes within the succession of the Shining Ones. But there were others - notably the pixies - who were of the utmost importance within the overall structure of the princely bloodline. Having the same Sidhé heritage as the historical elves and fairies, their familiar name derived from the description Pict-sidhé. In time, following their migration into Anjou, Ireland and the far North of Britain, they became better known, the Picts. They called their northern domain 'Caledonia' - the land of the Caille Daouine forest people.

The social structures of the Scythian Ring Lord were firmly centred upon designated seats of assembly which became known as Fairy Rings. These royal seats (from Scythia to Ireland) were known as Raths, which denoted round or circular constructions. On that account, the Round Table of Arthurian romance was designed to symbolize this concept. What is generally not recognized, however, is that (just like the Volsunga Saga and the Nibelungenlied) the Arthurian mythos is itself a very powerful Ring Cycle. The true legacy of the Round table lies not in the Table itself, but in the knights who sat at the table - for these noble emissaries represented the most important aspect of ancient lore by presenting themselves as a living, iron-clad Ring. In accordance with traditional Ring lore, the land fell into waste and chaos when the power of the Ring was usurped by virtue of Queen Guinevere being unfaithful to Arthur with Lancelot.

From around 1800 BC, the Kassites of Babylonia were predominant in the Rath culture. They gained their name from the word 'kassi', which meant 'place of wood' - the place in question being a sacred mound dwelling, variantly called a 'caddi'. By virtue of this, the Kassites were designated Wood Lords.

Following their time in Babylonia, they moved across Syria and Phoenicia into Europe and, eventually, to Britain where they established many great kingdoms within which the remnant of their name survived - the Welsh King Cadwallan, for example, and the earlier British King Casswallan, who reigned at about the time of Herod the Great. In each of these names the 'wallan' aspect is important since it was also the distinction of a Wood Lord - again with Mesopotamian roots. The original Wallans were called Yulannu, and it was from their ancient tradition that the winter solstice Yuletide festival derived before moving into Scandinavia.

Apart from the fairies, pixies and elves of history, there are others of the Shining Ones who are also said to inhabit the magical Land of Elphame; they are the sprites, goblins, gnomes and leprechauns.

The definition 'sprite' means no more nor less than a spirit person - one of the transcendental realm of the Sidhé. The original sprites were the ancient Scythian ghost warriors, who painted their bodies grey-blue to look like corpses when they entered the battlefield.

The 'goblin' description stems from the Germanic word kobelin, which denoted a mine-worker or one who worked underground. In the context of the Ring culture, goblins and gnomes were attendants of the Raths, wherein they were custodians of the wealth and wisdom of the ages, being essentially treasurers and archivists. It was their role as guardians of the treasures which led to their nominal distinction being used in association with banking, as in the Gnomes of Zurich. The word root is in the Greek equivalent of 'g-n-o', from which we derive gnosis (knowledge).

As for the 'leprechauns', they were the armoured horse troops of the Pict-sidhé. Their body armour was made from small overlapped plates of bronze, which tarnished to a greenish colour so they looked like lizards or dragons. In this regard, they were called 'lepra-corpan' (scaly body), a word corrupted in Ireland to leprechaun.

The Catholic Inquisition, although ostensibly set against heretics, managed to include all manner of groups and factions within this overall classification. Witchcraft was a common accusation, and into this particular net fell the gypsies. Any person with no fixed place of residence was regarded with suspicion because an itinerant lifestyle was perceived as a means by which to evade Church authority.

The main premise of Christianity was the promise of salvation as achieved through subservience to the bishops, aligned with the perpetuation of a serene afterlife in a heavenly environment. But how could the alternative notion of Hell be portrayed on Earth in a manner which would scare the life out of tentative believers or reluctant worshippers? Somehow Hell had to be given an earthly form, and what better than the notion of dead people who could not complete their dying because they were so hideously unclean - people who were, in fact, 'undead'. Such people, said the churchmen, had to roam the mortal world like lost souls with no dimension of life or death to call their own.

The concept was good enough in part, but it was really no more scary than the idea of ghosts with a physical form. Something else was needed; these beings had to become predators in order to make people fearful enough to lean wholly upon the Church for deliverance. So, what would all people, rich and poor alike, fear to lose the most if they were seeking salvation for their souls?

The answer to this question was found in the Bible - to be precise, in the Old Testament book of Leviticus, which states: "It is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul". It was therefore decided that the undead creatures would be said to prey upon people's blood, thereby divesting them of the route to atonement.

A problem to overcome in this regard was the fact that this Leviticus statement was part of a very ancient Hebrew law and had little or nothing to do with Christianity. But a way was soon found to cope with the anomaly when the Church ruled that every good Christian who partook of the Communion wine was figuratively drinking the blood of Christ. This divine blood then became a part of his or her own body and any creature which then extracted blood from such a person was reckoned to be stealing the blood of Christ!

These bloodthirsty revenants could only be repelled, it was decreed, by such devices as holy water and the crucifix. And so the Church introduced a truly fearsome creature into its subjugative mythology. They were classified as vampires - a word which derived from the old Scythian title for a kingly overlord of the Rath - a Lord of the Rings. [Ring(w)ra(i)ths.]

In summary it can be said that the ancient progenitors of our culture and spiritual heritage have never been positively featured in our academic teachings. Instead, their reality was quashed from the earliest days of Roman suppression as the literal diminution of their figures caused a parallel demolition of their history - to be portrayed as the fairies, elves, pixies and vampires of legend.

Notwithstanding this, the sovereign culture, from which derived all the so-called mythology that sits so comfortably within our collective memory comes from one place alone. It comes from a place and time which, to use J.R.R. Tolkien's definition, might just as well be called Middle-earth as by any other name. It comes from the long distant Realm of the Ring Lords.

[Dakêsîntrah]

Now, to continue with the topic at hand: Tumhalad contends that "God" (Eru, Tolkien's world) is an inconsistent god as he does not exercise clear omnipotent sovereignty in the Children of Hurin compared to the Creation narrative at the beginning of the Silmarillion.

That is a very good point.

It's always been a problem, Tumhalad, for orthodoxy to logically explain an omnipotent god of the Universe that also allows suffering and evil in the same token. I use the term 'omnipotence' to denote that which also includes omnipresence, omniscience, and the like, because, All-Power ought to encompass all of the said aspects.

The problem of Evil lies in an orthodox paradox; and it has perpetuated ever since Augustine of Hippo systematized it. It is perpetuated so much, that is has become an Evil in its own right. And that is the notion of Original Sin. One of the biggest frauds the Church endorses by coercion. Now, to that extension, you will find that "God" must be evil Himself by allowing evil, because He is the actual origin of such a thing. If someone wants to argue here, by exonerating God as the author of evil, then that person will have to logically find a origin that is not God in such a paradox that cannot exist without a Good, additionally conceding that Morality is not an umbrella notion transcendent by God as a non-active Idea before it is set out in real time to actually become a "sin" in the world.

Quite succinctly, then, Turin Turambar's higher standard to follow in Eru is still quite consistent in the Children of Hurin. If one sees 'God' as a cosmomythological cycle perpetuated by man, then Turin as part of that cycle of godhood, the races of Midgard are simply "gods" to themselves (as Midgard is the revelatory aspect of Eru). Tolkien quite understood this notion.

Turin "listens" to his sword, because it comes from the highest metal. Tolkien devotes quite a few words to Anglachel/Gurthang in his accounts of Túrin. The made characteristics we learn is that the weapon was made of iron that came from a fallen star. This material could cleave all iron ore from Middle-earth.

Star-Fire or the nectar of the gods has a prominent role in Ancient Near Eastern cosmomyth.

In strict terms, the original Star Fire was the lunar essence of the Goddess, but even in an everyday mundane environment, menstruum contains the most valuable endocrinal secretions, particularly those of the pineal and pituitary glands. The brain's pineal gland in particular was directly associated with the Tree of Life, for this tiny gland was said to secrete the very essence of active longevity, referred to as soma - or as the Greeks called it, ambrosia.

In mystic circles, the menstrual flow-er (she who flows) has long been the designated flower, and is represented as a lily or a lotus. Indeed, the definition 'flow-er' is the very root of the modern word flower. In ancient Sumer, the key females of the royal succession were all venerated as lilies, having such names as Lili, Luluwa, Lilith, Lilutu and Lillette.

In pictorial representation, the Messianic Dragon bore little relation to the winged, fire-breathing beast of later western mythology. It was, in essence, a large-jawed serpent with four legs - very much like a crocodile or a monitor. This was the sacred Messeh whose name was Draco. This sovereign beast was a divine emblem of the Egyptian pharaohs, a symbol of the Egyptian Therapeutate in Karnak and Qumrân, while also being the Bistea Neptunis sea-serpent of the descendant Merovingian Fisher Kings in Gaul.

In old Hebrew texts references to serpents are made by use of the word nahash (from the stem NHSH), but this does not relate to serpents in the way that we might perceive them as venomous snakes. It relates to serpents in their traditional capacity as bringers of wisdom and enlightenment - for the word nahash actually meant 'to decipher', or 'to find out'. Serpents, in one form or another, were always associated with wisdom and healing - with the Trees of Life and Knowledge being customarily identified with serpents. Indeed the insignia of many of today's medical associations is precisely this image of a serpent coiled around the Plant of Birth - a depiction shown in the reliefs of ancient Sumer to be Enki's own personal emblem.

Interestingly, though, another common emblem for medical relief organizations depicts two coiled serpents, spiralling around the winged caduceus of Hermes the magician. In these instances, the true symbolism of the Star Fire ritual is conveyed and this symbol can be traced back to the very origins of the alchemical mystery schools and gnostic institutions. The records explain that the central staff and entwined serpents represent the spinal cord and the sensory nervous system. The two uppermost wings signify the brain's lateral ventricular structures. Between these wings, above the spinal column, is shown the small central node of the pineal gland.

The combination of the central pineal and its lateral wings has long been referred to as the Swan and in Grail lore (as in some Yogic circles) the Swan is emblematic of the fully enlightened being. This is the ultimate realm of consciousness achieved by the medieval Knights of the Swan - as epitomized by such chivalric figures as Perceval and Lohengrin.

The pineal is a very small gland, shaped like a pine-cone. It is centrally situated within the brain, although outside the ventricles, and not forming a part of the brain-matter as such. About the size of a grain of corn, the gland was thought by the 17th-century French optical scientist, Renê Descartes, to be the seat of the soul - the point at which the mind and body are conjoined. The ancient Greeks considered likewise and, in the 4th century BC, Herophilus described the pineal as an organ which regulated the flow of thought.

In the days of ancient Sumer, the priests of Anu (the father of Enlil and Enki) perfected and elaborated a ramifying medical science of living substances with menstrual Star Fire being an essential source component. In the first instance, this was pure Anunnaki lunar essence called Gold of the Gods, and it was fed to the kings and queens of the Dragon succession. Later, however, in Egypt and Mediterranea, menstrual extracts were ritually collected from sacred virgin priestesses who were venerated as the Scarlet Women. Indeed, the very word 'ritual' stems from this practice, and from the word ritu (the redness), which defined the sacred ceremony.

Hormonal supplements are, of course, still used by today's organo-therapy establishment, but their inherent secretions (such as melatonin and serotonin) are obtained from the desiccated glands of dead animals and they lack the truly important elements which exist only in live human glandular manufacture.

In the fire symbolism of ancient alchemy, the colour red is synonymous with the metal gold. In some traditions (including the Indian tantras), red is also identified with black. Hence, the goddess Kali is said to be both red and black. The original heritage of Kali was, however, Sumerian, and she was said to be Kalimâth, the sister of Cain's wife Luluwa. Kali was a primary princess of the Dragon house and from her Star Fire association she became the goddess of time, seasons, periods and cycles.

In the early days, therefore, the metals of the alchemists were not common metals, but living essences, and the ancient mysteries were of a physical, not a metaphysical, nature. Indeed, the very word 'secret' has its origin in the hidden knowledge of glandular secretions. Truth was the ritu, from which stems not only ritual, but also the words rite, root and red. The ritu, it was said, reveals itself as physical matter in the form of the purest and most noble of all metals: gold, which was deemed to represent an ultimate truth.

Just as the word secret has its origin in the translation of an ancient word, so too do other related words have their similar bases. In ancient Egypt, the word amen was used to signify something hidden or concealed. The word occult meant very much the same: 'hidden from view' - and yet today we use amen to conclude prayers and hymns, while something occult is deemed sinister. In real terms, however, they both relate to the word secret, and all three words were, at one time or another, connected with the mystic science of endocrinal secretions.

Such 'Star-Fire' could only have come from the heavens, it is certain. And most likely we get the ancients insisting on a world in successive catastrophe. Intruding comet and cometary debris is evident in geological and dendrology. Yes, the sky was much different to the ancients and they most certainly made time-honored rituals according to fallen meteor or cometary debris.

Such a hidden tradition I am sure Tolkien invested time into; for the Anglo-Saxon tradition is the latest ancient world heir.

As known by world ritual, most meteorite that is venerated (example the Ka'aba in Mecca) is also made into fantastic weapons that not only had better strength and power, it also was a medium to communicate to the godhead (the bringer of knowledge), and the mechanism behind this cosmic energy- which is THE "supreme God" personified by cyclical world upheavals (Creations) that signified the passing of the Sun through various planet gateways, moreover creating successive Ages of Men and Elves.

Furthermore, Turin's sword is said to be black. This denotes a meteoric rock. For such objects, we have the name Kali which in English is 'coal' (denoting that which is black) stems also from this name via the intermediate word kol. In the Hebrew tradition, Bath-Kol (a Kali counterpart) was called the Daughter of the Voice, and the voice was said to originate during a female's puberty. Hence, the womb was associated with the enigmatic voice and Star Fire was said to be the oracular Word of the Womb. Is this alignment too coincidental to be true? It is the Voice from the Stone, which immediately applies to Turin's sword cut from the stone of a meteorite.

----------------------------------------------

Now, for someone's reference to Job:

The Problem of Evil cannot be applied here.

Why?

Satan is not evil.

"Satan" in ancient Hebrew simply means "judge," "opposer" or "accuser." God can be all of these things. However, he has agents of good that carry out his commands, as he is actually not "omnipresent" (an ad hoc claim perpetuated by orthodoxy). There is a hierarchy of being called e'lim or elohim in the ancient Hebrew and the "messengers are one of the lowest ranks. The Judges or Accusers stand in court judging the wicked. These are the satans. Concurrently, humans can also be called satans if they simply oppose. Peter is called satan by Jesus. He opposed him. In all of the Bible, there is no strong evidence to suggest any main antagonist called THE Satan. It's simply a title. And Lucifer is simply a title. It means Son of the Dawn, or Helel ben Shachar in Hebrew, as Isaiah puts it. It can be applied to any messenger who comes in the Name of the El.

I hope this may clear up some things, Tumhalad. These posts were for you.

Always be aware that people tend to disagree, not because they are "idiots" but because they already have an established presupposition.

Best Regards

[Mnemosyne]

Originally Posted by Dakesintrah

Now, for someone's reference to Job:

I have a name, you know.

And I fail to see how the identity or good/evilness of Satan applies to Job in the context of bad stuff happening to good people.

I specifically did not bring up the "behind the scenes" parts of Job, or Satan at all, because Job the person did not have access to that side of the story. All that happened was that his life suddenly started going sour, even though he had done nothing wrong.

In fact, I didn't even apply Job to the "Problem of Evil"--that was tumhalad. I only wanted to highlight the context of a text accepted by Jews and Christians, in which suffering happens for no apparent reason, and suggesting that the fact that Jews and Christians alike have used it to grapple with the idea of suffering, without necessarily engendering a different "moral universe," would suggest that the same sort of reconciliation could and did happen in the fictional Middle-earth.

All of this is quite far, I think, from Tumhalad's original point, but I dislike being misrepresented. This, however, is spot-on:

Always be aware that people tend to disagree, not because they are "idiots" but because they already have an established presupposition.

For you and me both, Dakesintrah. Cheers.

[Bêthberry]

Wow, Dakêsîntrah, I think you've just set the record for longest post ever on the Barrow Downs.

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

First, let me start with my concept of myth, by my quoting an excerpt from modern day mytheographer, Allan Alford in his "Myth And Religion":

It is widely presumed that myth and religion are two different things. To the extent that religion involves a whole array of non-myth elements – a moral code, a faith in a supreme being, and an obedience to the Church – this is true. However, if we focus on the primary element in religion, namely the Supreme Being (or God), then religion and myth become synonymous. Indeed, the conclusion of life-long study of religion is that God is actually the personification of myth.

Just an aside here for accuracy's sake, but Buddhism is considered a religion yet it has no concept of God. Those troubled by the absence might tend to refer to it as a "spiritual philosophy" rather than religion, but that perspective tends to avoid the very interesting questions which Buddhism raises about divinity.

Originally Posted by Mnemo

I have a name, you know.

Yes, you do, Mnemosyne, and a lovely and fascinating name it is.

[Inziladun]

Interesting stuff, Dakêsîntrah.

Just so it's clear, you may wish to cite the other sources of these quotes, in addition to the one you did note from the Alford essay.

This and this.

It's always been a problem, Tumhalad, for orthodoxy to logically explain an omnipotent god of the Universe that also allows suffering and evil in the same token.

Once again, it isn't that suffering is "allowed". Many misfortunes, Túrin's certainly among them, were caused by, or at least were enhanced by individual exercise of free will.

As to the age-old argument of "why do good things happen to bad people", well, think of it this way. If life were all sunshine and roses, what meaning would faith have? It's quite easy to be reverent and good when things are going well; quite different when things are falling to bits around one.

Let's look at Tuor again. He was born an orphan, raised in the wild by fugitive Elves; a hard life. As a boy he was captured by the Easterlings and made a slave. He was able to escape after three years. He watched the signs and was led to Vinyamar. There, met by an incarnate Ulmo, he agreed to take up Ulmo's errand.

What ultimately set Tuor apart from his cousin was humbleness, and a realization that his own feelings and desires were not the basis on which all his decisions should be made. Tuor, like Frodo later, possessed the instinctive knowledge that there were things above him that he had to do, regardless of whether he himself would be rewarded or even would understand what was happening. Faith.

[Galadriel55]

Just a side note:

If "God" creates the world and all creatures in it so that the creatures can use their mind and free will, he has to give them an opportunity to make choices. If there is only good, there is no choice. If creatures cannot make their own decisions, what is the use of free will and mind? And if there's no mind or free will, it's as if the creatures are lumps of stone that cannot do anything on its own (hehe, like Aule's stone dwarves and what Eru said about them). It's like a puppet show. Doesn't the world lose all its beauty that way?

You need evil to create a difference, a choice.


Just imagined a really weird thing: this "God" sitting up there watching us discuss him and compare him to Eru!

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

Now, to continue with the topic at hand: Tumhalad contends that "God" (Eru, Tolkien's world) is an inconsistent god as he does not exercise clear omnipotent sovereignty in the Children of Hurin compared to the Creation narrative at the beginning of the Silmarillion.

That is a very good point.

Firstly, while the conversation may have veered in this direction, tumhalad's original contention, and the one he has made in multiple threads, is actually that Children of Hurin presents a "moral universe" outside the rest of Tolkien's work, that it is in fact "athiestic", and that it is written as a "counterpoint" to the "providential" Lord of the Rings. Which is not the same thing– in fact, I should say the "contradiction" applies to the whole Legendarium. That has been my contention and that of various other people.

Secondly, you seem to have misunderstand Mnemo's point about the Book of Job– which I thought pretty clear myself but there you go– you're certainly quite right that people interpret things differently!

Thirdly, look, Dakêsîntrah– would you mind being a little more concise and on-topic in your comments in future, please? So much of what you've said here, though interesting in itself, is about as far OT as you could get. As just one example, while this–

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

Turin "listens" to his sword, because it comes from the highest metal. Tolkien devotes quite a few words to Anglachel/Gurthang in his accounts of Túrin. The made characteristics we learn is that the weapon was made of iron that came from a fallen star. This material could cleave all iron ore from Middle-earth.

may be somewhat relevant, I cannot for the life of me see why it needs to be backed up with this–

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

Star-Fire or the nectar of the gods has a prominent role in Ancient Near Eastern cosmomyth.

In strict terms, the original Star Fire was the lunar essence of the Goddess, but even in an everyday mundane environment, menstruum contains the most valuable endocrinal secretions, particularly those of the pineal and pituitary glands. The brain's pineal gland in particular was directly associated with the Tree of Life, for this tiny gland was said to secrete the very essence of active longevity, referred to as soma - or as the Greeks called it, ambrosia.

In mystic circles, the menstrual flow-er (she who flows) has long been the designated flower, and is represented as a lily or a lotus. Indeed, the definition 'flow-er' is the very root of the modern word flower. In ancient Sumer, the key females of the royal succession were all venerated as lilies, having such names as Lili, Luluwa, Lilith, Lilutu and Lillette.

I mean, I may be right out here, but it really looks to me as if you've simply posted an entire essay on "Echoes of Ancient Near Eastern Mythology in Tolkien's Work", or something like that, in the middle of a topic to which it's only marginally relevant, if at all. I really think this should be given its own thread, where we can actually discuss some of this without the risk of being savaged by arboreal rodents.

Perhaps we could start with the question of how it is that the Sumerians based their symbolism on a pun in a language that had yet to exist at the time?

I look forward to it!

[Dakêsîntrah]

My apologies, Mnemosyne, for disregarding your name. I think I had a moment of "fast" typing, wherein I glossed over the specific "who-said-what."

Now, the example of Job: I am simply stating that since your personified "Satan" is out of the equation, and therefore it is one of God's good guys judging Job, testing him ,if you will, then it may be even harder to put God in an exonerated stance. One is forced to come up with another workable hypothesis, notwithstanding taking in regard the Hebrew grammar.

No, when you think of 'God" in an anthropomorphic sense, this limits his All-Power, and the moment God either 1) gives up his "omnipresent" being for anthropomorphism or 2) temporarily withdraws at least one of his attributes, he ceases to be the "Supreme" ontological being. In the ancient world, function/relationship determined existence, not the modern structure/origins.

Therefore, Galadriel55, it must be insisted that we drop our modern preconceptions of structural creation. In all of the ancient texts, man did not necessarily describe "creation from nothing" thereby assuming universe origins. That was not what was important to them.

In the book of Genesis, it is not describing a creation ex nihilo. Why? The primordial waters of chaos already existed. It is not "water" in the literal sense, it is a metaphysical term for the Void; that which is Orderly Chaos, or that which has no boundaries. Once you ascribe physicality, we have boundaries, limits. How is it to describe God? It is rather better to be silent, implies Dionysius the Areopagite. For in Silence you cannot negate God by describing him as Love, Holy, Good, or any other attribute the human mind attributes in limited form. God is not Love, Holy or Good. He (even 'He' is negation) is Not That Which Is, a universal paradox; because the paradox is precisely the Mechanism by which Ages are Not Which Once Was.

I'm not sure why there is a need to hang on to the notion of 'free will.' As Eru, the One is that which is between the two extremes of chaos and order, then you are a product of His limitation, Which Is Not Limitation? Why? Because That Which Is Not Limitation is negation, the other cosmic balance. All things with limitation (physicality) dissolve into One. It's the cyclical process of Nature.

Inziladun, thank you for pointing out those references I forgot to cite! Still, it is good to cite your own articles you produce! However, it is indeed interesting stuff to engage in, isn't it I was hoping it would prod someone to study further for the sources. It lets me know someone is active in pursuit of truth!

Now, respectively, I think you missed my point about "allowable suffering." Regardless of whether suffering is allowed or not, the point is maintained that had God let suffering perpetuate, or even much more so that he actually does not allow suffering, neither can withstand it, he is still the author of it. He is the author, the root of evil, for simply being the only uncreated One. Even if evil (suffering as the result in most cases) was inactive (that is, not fully consumated in real time) it was still conceived as a static thing of the Mechanism. Evil, I contend, is simply the gaping hole of primordial Chaos, that did indeed exist at each successive Creation catastrophe that brought about new Ages. Good can only really be defined as something which has limits or boundaries (see above for my explanation of physicality as boundaries) - indeed, "definition" is a bounded term. Something can only be defined by separating a physicality with another.


Bethberry, good question about the Buddhists. Buddhists ought not to be religionists. Buddhism was not established by Guatama as a religion but as a philosophy. In other words, ethical standards to live by. When religion comes in it is always pervaded by propaganda (propaganda, ironically was a term invented by the Church to spread about its dogma) which in itself is coerced in a fashionable manner by dogma. Therefore, your Buddhists that worship Buddha as a god are practicing coercive dogma, which is false. Not all Buddhists follow this, however, which is "good."

[Dakêsîntrah]

Nerwen,

I understand completely tumhalad's interpretation regarding a seemingly contradictory moral universe in COH in comparison to other Tolkien works. And in that, I am disagreeing with him, offering another solution that seems to be far more tenable. It is a working solution, so bear with me, or else I encourage you to bear yourself the time to look more in depth at what I have to say.

Again, my point, respectively, is to say that Tolkien is being entirely consistent in his Legendarium in addition to the COH, specifically, the story of Turin Turambar. It is certainly not "atheistic" when I point out the fact of meteoric objects made into temples or swords were actually mediums of contact with the gods. It negates the whole theory of Turin being isolated in his morality from Eru. Read again, and you may see the connection.

This is the praise I give Tolkien for writing this yet "hidden" ancient theme.

I think this thread provides key alignments with Morality. For Morality is that which umbrellas the whole theme of Creation (that is, Creation defined by catastrophic upheaval under an auroral sky). For instance, if you were to ask an Egyptian priestess to describe Ma'at, she would make it a laughing matter, for it ought to be obvious that Ma'at (law of Morality) is that of Isis, the Judge (satan) of Creation.

The bottom line is that my extended posts were designed to challenge your presuppositions, and then we can get to the meat of the matter.

[Nerwen]

Again, my point, respectively, is to say that Tolkien is being entirely consistent in his Legendarium in addition to the COH, specifically, the story of Turin Turambar. It is certainly not "atheistic" when I point out the fact of meteroic objects made into temples or swords were actually mediums of contact with the gods. It negates the whole theory of Turin being isolated in his morality from Eru. Read again, and you may see the connection.

My point is that you could easily have said this much more clearly in far fewer words, my friend– perhaps more as you did just now. (Besides, the fact that meteorites have often been considered sacred is not exactly news.) I must admit that I am also still confused about what exactly you're trying to say here– that Turin thought the sword spoke to him with the voice of Eru? Really?

In general, I cannot help feeling that your own "presuppositions" (perhaps about the ignorance and bias of everyone else?) have led you to misinterpret or disregard much of what has already been said.

[Nerwen]

I'm sorry if I sound overly-irritatated there, it's just that it is almost impossible to discern whatever points you are trying to make when they're so obscured by a fog of semi-random information. Whether you intend this or not, it really does end up looking like deliberate obfustication.

Okay?

[Dakêsîntrah]

Nerwen,

I concur. I certainly could have said this in fewer words. But unfortunately, many other people require more evidence. I am quite happy to expound upon long lines of text.

Meteorites being sacred is not new, but that's not the point. It is the metaphysical principles that come from such rare phenomena (cosmic catastrophe) that encompasses Morality (that which exists by function/relation).

Respectively, if you would have noticed this occult theme of Tolkien, Turin's sword shall have seemed to drive a chasm between human subjective law by action and divine accommodated law.

Furthermore, who's to say Eru actually speaks anthromorphically? I contend he doesn't. In all other ancient Creation myths, there are narratives where a Creation god "speaks" as if the man was already present as a created (structural/origin theory) being. This is anachronistic if you fall into the mindset of anthropomorphism. Eru "speaks" as he is defined, yet unchanged by the successive cycle of Ages. They are not mere words (Tolkien's parallelism is undeniable). Eru enables his foremost Beings to sing "themes." This is not an anthropomorphic choir. This is a visual look into the Ages of Good (limitation) and the Ages of Evil (Chaos). Ages of Good are met with the growth of boundaries (Elves), while balanced by the destruction of Chaos (Melkor). Both are necessary for the balance of nature and the eventual subsumation of Eru, the One. As Eru says, anything Morgoth does he providentially aides Eru in keeping the balance.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

Meteorites being sacred is not new, but that's not the point. It is the metaphysical principles that come from such rare phenomena (cosmic catastrophe) that encompasses Morality (that which exists by function/relation).

Respectively, if you would have noticed this occult theme of Tolkien, Turin's sword shall have seemed to drive a chasm between human subjective law by action and divine accommodated law.

The anthropomorphic blade has nothing to do with Eru. The sword speaks for two reasons:

1) It is a direct lift from the Kalevala, in which the anti-hero, Kullervo, having had an incestuous liasion with his sister (unknowingly of course, just as in CoH) commits suicide. But first he asks his magic blade (given to him by the Finnish thunder god Ukko) to do the deed for him:

Kullerwoinen, wicked wizard,
Grasps the handle of his broadsword,
Asks the blade this simple question:
"Tell me, O my blade of honor,
Dost thou wish to drink my life-blood,
Drink the blood of Kullerwoinen?"

Thus his trusty sword makes answer,
Well divining his intentions:
"Why should I not drink thy life-blood,
Blood of guilty Kullerwoinen,
Since I feast upon the worthy,
Drink the life-blood of the righteous?"

and 2) Unlike Kullervo's divinely wrought blade, Anglachel (Gurthang) was smithied by Eol the Dark Elf, who created a masterwork that was imbued with the artist's aura. Not unlike Feanor's Silmarils or Sauron's Ring, Anglachel had the semblance of life, an echo of the artisan who crafted it. Melian saw this at once when she noted to Beleg:

"There is malice in this sword. The dark heart of the smith still dwells in it. It will not love the hand it serves, neither will it abide with you long."

So, Tolkien borrowed the idea from the Kalevala, but removed the divine reference from the sword; although it is forged from meteoric metal, I see no direct inference that Tolkien wished to imply divinity in the blade. The blade was indeed magic, but unlike Kullervo's blade (bestowed by the god Ukko), it was wrought by Eol, who in Elvish subcreative fashion creates a weapon instilled with his own malevolence, pride and ill-will. That the sword could ascertain injustice might just as well be because Eol himself always felt ill-used or wronged.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

Bethberry, good question about the Buddhists. Buddhists ought not to be religionists. Buddhism was not established by Guatama as a religion but as a philosophy. In other words, ethical standards to live by.

Not so fast. Not sure that "religionists" is a fair term to use to decribe Buddhists, as they are likely less prone to being zealots than other practitioners of faith. However, there are some generally agreed upon distinctions that can be made between philosophy and religion which allow Buddhism fairly and justly to be called a religion.

Buddhism is based on revelation and faith, while generally philosophy is not, since it is based on rational and logical systemic search for knowledge. It is a way of thinking rather than a way of behaving, although ethics are studied philosophically. Is meditation a way of behaving or of thinking?

Also, religions have rituals and ceremonies for important events of the year and of life. These are both private and communal. (This is something generally regarded as absent in Tolkien's mythology, except for Faramir's men facing west.) Philosophers do not ritualistically cleanse their hands before reading Hegel or pray to Schopenhauer for enlightenment. Buddhism does have an extensive practice of rituals.

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

Therefore, your Buddhists that worship Buddha as a god are practicing coercive dogma, which is false. Not all Buddhists follow this, however, which is "good."

Note, I do not "own" any Buddhists, as they are people, not material objects. And I did not speak of any Buddhists who worship Buddha. (I said Buddhism raises interesting questions about divinity. ) In fact, I don't know of any Buddhists who worship Buddha as a god, so I have no idea where you got this point about "practicing coercive dogma." As a statement, it's unproven opinion.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Note, I do not "own" any Buddhists, as they are people, not material objects. And I did not speak of any Buddhists who worship Buddha. (I said Buddhism raises interesting questions about divinity. ) In fact, I don't know of any Buddhists who worship Buddha as a god, so I have no idea where you got this point about "practicing coercive dogma." As a statement, it's unproven opinion.

Also, why are these hypothetical Buddha-worshippers assumed to be using force to spread their doctrine? I mean, they might, of course, but I don't see why such a belief, however mistaken, must be automatically "coercive", any more than any other.

[Nerwen]

As for the meteorite business– I must concur with Morthoron: nowhere is there the least hint that Anglachel has, or is regarded as having, divine authority.

Dakêsîntrah, is it possible that you have fallen into the error of assuming that a symbol has the same meaning in all times and any context? Again, your general argument, as far as I can make out, *cough* presupposes that Tolkien was deeply versed in what appears to be some form of hermetic tradition– and I can't help feeling there's a lack of evidence for this.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Dakêsîntrah, is it possible that you have fallen into the error of assuming that a symbol has the same meaning in all times and any context? Again, your general argument, as far as I can make out, *cough* presupposes that Tolkien was deeply versed in what appears to be some form of hermetic tradition– and I can't help feeling there's a lack of evidence for this.

Like the original poster of this thread, I believe Dakêsîntrah has read far too much into the story we're discussing or, rather, wishes to subsume his (or her, I suppose) own prolix agenda into Tolkien's text. In any case, he lost me completely when he started talking about pineal glands and menstrual flow.

[Dakêsîntrah]

Bethberry, it's quite simply really. When religion is separated from myth, as it has been done by the Church over the centuries, it becomes propaganda; that which is pervaded by dogma. Dogma divides like a sword because it seeks to use political coercion to convert masses. Therefore, myth becomes "faith."

In prehistory, myth was not, nor ever was intended to be divided from ritual (that which is conceived by experience, ie, religion. It was merely a passion and resurrection play that mirrored the cyclical nature of the cosmos.

Morthoron, the Kalevala is quite fascinating indeed.

However, are you aware of how many parallels I can glean from other ancient texts regarding "life-blood?"

"Now when he [Diomedes] had pursued her [Aphrodite] through the dense throng and come on her, then great-hearted Tydeus` son thrust with his keen spear, and leapt on her and wounded the skin of her weak hand; straight through the ambrosial raiment that the Graces themselves had woven her pierced the dart into the flesh, above the springing of the palm. Then flowed the goddess`s immortal blood, such ichor as floweth in the blessed gods; for they eat no bread neither drink they gleaming wine, wherefore they are bloodless and are named immortals." - The Illiad Book V, Homer

Now, as much as we like to think with modern lenses that this description is anthropomorphic, it is not. Ichor is Homer's term for a blueish watery discharge. It flows from the gods, and is therefore the "life-blood" of the gods.

Life comes from immortality. You cannot have life as that which has a beginning in itself. There must be a priori that has always been; therefore, ichor ("life-blood") is a product of immortality. Notice the distinction between Homer's gods having "immortal blood" yet being "bloodless" like mortal men.

If the Kalevala wished to convey the blood of mortal men in the sense of anthropomorphism, then it would have easily resorted to "the blood of men" instead of "life-blood."

For instance, as in this case of Osiris:

Zagreus as Dionysos (Osiris) is known as the god of many names, most of which refer to his twofold character as the suffering mortal Zagreus, and the immortal or reborn god-man. Many titles also refer to him as the mystic savior. He is the All-potent, the Permanent, the Life-blood of the World, the majesty in the forest, in fruit, in the hum of the bee, in the flowing of the stream, etc., the earth in its changes -- the list runs on indefinitely, and is strikingly similar to the passage in which Krishna, the Hindu avatara, instructs Arjuna how he shall know him completely: "I am the taste in water, the light in the sun and moon," etc. (BG ch 7).

Notice how immortality relates explicitly to being "re-born." This is not anthropomorphism, but cosmo-myth. Being reborn signifies the endless cycle of Creation (catastrophe or chaos to renewal of limits).

Furthermore,

In the Finnish mythology of the Kalevala, a bee is the messenger between this world and higher realms. In Scandinavian mythology bees again play an important part with the world tree (Yggdrasil). Immortality is aligned with the will and the urge to enter into the solar life or the spirit. Dying and being reborn into the cosmos as divine energy is the ascension to immortality, and thus humans mirror the cosmic play of Creation; cyclical destruction and rebirth. And these events mark the successive Ages of Men and Elves.

Another principle is that of the ancient serpent (wisdom, bringer of gnosis) signifies spiritual immortality, wisdom, reimbodiment, or regeneration. In the triad of sun, moon, and serpent or cross, it denotes the manifested Logos, and hence is often said to be seven-headed. As such it is in conflict with the sun, and sometimes with the moon; but this conflict is merely the duality of contrary forces essential to cosmic stability. The Ouroboros signifies cyclical Creation by always consuming itself by the tail.

Moreover, we have in the Kalevala the fight between Ahti and the evil serpent. This "fight" is signifying the dual aspect of cyclical Creation; destruction and renewal. the serpent is two-poled as having a head and a tail, Rahu and Ketu in India, commonly described as being the moon's north and south poles, the moon thus being a triple symbol in which a unity conflicts with a duality.

The principle nature of destruction and renewal in the universe consists of what scientists know today as plasma. Plasma can be seen in its illumined, glowing state as watery blue and other varieties of colors, especially in auroral skies.

Planets and thus comets, along with meteors discharge their energy in conjunction with charged plasma particles in the sea that is outer space. When we have Diomedes puncturing Aphrodite and her "ichor" is discharged, we should be envisioning planetary or cometary catastrophe. The same thing can be said in the Finnish myth of the Kalevala. Each successive ancient culture continued and adapted their own version which was rooted in the same primeval events long before.

The Planetary Discharge Model can be studied in fuller detail here: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ci...arsystem06.htm

The Exploding Planet Hypothesis Model can be studied in fuller detail here: http://metaresearch.org/solar%20system/eph/eph2000.asp

We have the Norse wolf-god, Manegarm. He was known to chase the Moon every night, eat corpses and splatter the heavens with life-blood.

In the Egyptian Book of Going Forth By Day, we have in the Appendix of the papyrus of Nu, Sheet 14 the following:

"Horus is both the divine food and the sacrifice. He made haste to gather together [the members of] of his father. Horus is his deliverer. Horus is his deliverer. Horus hath sprung from the essence of his divine father and from his decay."

In Near Eastern mythology, the "divine food" is identical with the "nectar of the gods," that is, the life sustenance or "blood" of the gods. Therefore, it is no coincidence that initiates in ritual drink the "blood of Christ" or "the blood of the gods." The blood is the nourishment (food) because it sustains life.

Where does this material come from? It is space material, sample also having been collected off meteoric debris.
http://irisia.com/ormajiandminerals.html

For more information on this "divine food" or "life-blood," check out the following site:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/bi...lianazar_4.htm

Yes indeed, meteoric weapons of might and "magic" - temple of ritual and metaphysic cosmic passion and renewal plays have root in this mysterious substance, which was insisted as the medium or gateway between man and the cosmos.

A sword may "speak" to Turin, not in the anthropomorphic sense, but, as an extension of his flaming spirit (Curufinwë), it is the innate "conscience" - just as your conscience does not "speak" to you anthropomorphically, it is that sense of instinct which is godlike, because everything subsists into the One, as the balance between Chaos and Order, boundary and limitlessness. The Creation narrative of the Ages. Therefore, Eru does "speak" to Turin via the divine energy within the blade. The blade is a product of the "theme" - the divine energy that sustains the cyclical balance - a product of chaos, the meteorite, providentially shaped by Eöl, the Dark.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

A sword may "speak" to Turin, not in the anthropomorphic sense, but, as an extension of his flaming spirit (Curufinwë)

Errr... what does Curufinwe have to do with anything? You seem to confuse Feanor and Turin. Feanor is the Spirit of Fire. If you're referring to the spirit of the sword, I'd say it's black (like Eol), not flaming.