Of another world

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Not being a Biblical scholar,. . .

Now, as I understand it, the traditional Christian approach is that one either accepts the Bible as a whole, or one does not accept it at all. And this is one of the things that has always troubled me about Christanity as a faith (and all faiths which adopt a similar approach). You see, I accept that there are many great things that the Church can and does achieve, and that there are many useful messages that one can take from the teachings in the Bible, particularly the New Testament. But I do not accept the Bible as historical fact. I see it as a myth, probably based loosely in parts on historical events. And nor do I accept a God that is willing to relegate decent, law-abiding, moral people to Hell just because they don’t believe in Him or adhere to a particular way of worshipping him.

Which all boils down to one question for me, and here I will try to drag this post back vaguely back on to topic. Why cannot Christians accept that not everything in the Bible is cast-iron fact, yet still maintain their faith in God? I am aware that there are some who have, in recent times, taken a more “flexible” approach to the Bible (regarding, for example, the stories of Creation and Eden are allegorical, rather than factual, in nature) but they, I believe, are in the minority.

If one believes that The Lord of the Rings is an inherently “Christian” work and that it we can extract good and worthwhile messages from it, yet nevertheless can accept it as a work of fiction, why cannot one apply similar reasoning to the Bible? There is, of course, a major difference in that the Bible is expressly set in our world and incorporates elements which may be viewed as historical events. But the principle is surely the same. As I see it, they are both, in their different ways, myths. Ones from which we can perhaps learn much. But myths nevertheless. And accepting that fact surely does n ot in itself mean that one must relinquish one's belief in God.

While I also am no biblical scholar, I think there are other ways in which to view the Bible. This true/untrue literalism tends to belong to the more fundamentalist wings of the faith, but not all Christians view the Bible with a literal eye. There are other ways of understanding historical documents.

Another way of considering it is as the history of God's revelation. Or, if you will, the developing stages of a people's awareness of what or who God is. I suppose this is akin to the way of explaining things to children. When six year olds ask where babies come from, they are happy with a 'simplied version' of events (which does not mean the old birds and bees or cabbage patches) and don't really want a medical-school level lecture on human reproductive technology. (Come to think of it, neither do teens, who are often bored in "Personal Health" classes with physiological details but who don't get the open and frank discussion about the psychology of human sexuality. I digress, though.) Adult understanding too, of all of life and not just theology/religion/sex, (should I add politics? Next paragraph!) undergoes change and development. There are more than a few people who have better knowledge of themselves at 40, 50 and 60 than they had at 25. And of other people.

One problem with this POV is that is sounds similar to arrogant assumptions about human progress. Yet at the same time I think people do, slowly and often times with regression, change awareness. Most people on earth today would not accept slavery as a fair condition, yet there is still much "white slavery trade" going on with women. Yet by and large among the human communities, more are agin it than for it. I'm not quite so sanguine about our understanding of war. The other problem with this approach to revelation is that it tends to understand the Old Testament solely in terms of the terms set out in the New Testament. There's misrepresentation here. I suppose something similar must happen in Islam, where previous revelations are accepted as prior prophesies. (At least, I think this is what happens.)

So, an understanding of the Bible as revelation involves an active, ongoing understanding of interpretation as process rather than as archeology.

Originally Posted by SpM again

I recall once speaking to someone who was convinced that she would not see her parents in the afterlife since, although they were decent enough people, they did not share her faith and her particular beliefs and were therefore (in her mind) slated for a one-way trip to Hell. It rather put me off Christianity, or that particular doctrinal approach at least, for life.

I think it was you, Mith, who brought up the distress caused to Tolkien's wife by his insistance that she convert to his faith. Have I got that right? If so, I presume that his insistance was grounded in a similar approach.

It was Mithalwen as I recall who most vociferously posted about this. But there is nothing in Carpenter's biography of Tolkien which provides a clear explanation of Tolkien's insistence--at least not that I can recall is an adequate treatment of the subject, other than to point out how the decision cut Edith off from one avenue of artistic pursuit, her music playing.

Tolkien's insistence is all the more perplexing given that the Church never insisted upon conversion of a heathen partner. It required a promise that children be brought up Catholic, but it never forced conversion on the partner as a condition of marriage. Strange that Tolkien who was so anti-bullying in LotR should have been so demanding in this instance.

Does that tombstone, stating Luthien and Beren, imply something here?

And, umm, what was the topic here?

EDIT: Opps, cross posted with drigel. I'm glad at least someone bothered to read that article!

[Mithalwen]

True. And this apppoach to faith I find easier to accept and understand. Yet there is also the problem associated with any faith that requires one to adhere to a particular doctrine or face eternal damnation. I recall once speaking to someone who was convinced that she would not see her parents in the afterlife since, although they were decent enough people, they did not share her faith and her particular beliefs and were therefore (in her mind) slated for a one-way trip to Hell. It rather put me off Christianity, or that particular doctrinal approach at least, for life.

I think it was you, Mith, who brought up the distress caused to Tolkien's wife by his insistance that she convert to his faith. Have I got that right? If so, I presume that his insistance was grounded in a similar approach.[/QUOTE]


As Bethberry says, my shall we say sadness, regarding that conversion was mainly due to the negative consequences it had for Edith. I get the impression that it was a control issue rather than a theological one and influenced by the ostracism of his mother by her family on her conversion. What Freud would say about this moulding of the wife into the mother's image is perhaps a matter for another topic (or not). However I do think it is a factor in my hearty dislike of the story of Beren and Luthien .

I also am not in accord with that idea. I think the acceptance of the Calormene by Aslan at the end of Lewis' "The Last Battle" is its redeeming feature. When I was a practising Christian I was rather ashamed to be associated with such people who use their "faith" as a justification for bigotry and intolerance. I felt that if they were right, then I didn't want to be apart of it to quote Franz Ferdinand
"I never had a doubt you ever existed
I only have a problem when people insist on
Taking their hate and placing it on your name ".

And as I grew up and associated more with of people of other faiths or none who led lives of equal morality and often greater charity then it seemed an increasingly unacceptable attitude and one that seemed alien to the spirit of the life of Jesus who tended not to be on the side of the sanctimonious and self righteous prigs if I remember correctly . There are more than one way to skin a cat (but don't try that at home, children).

[Formendacil]

Going back a fair ways to the below quote, let me first say that I have been extremely hesitant to enter this thread. It is, first of all, not really Tolkien-based anymore. Secondly, it has gained a very anti-Christian feel to it. LMP has bravely stuck it out, but for the most part it feels like he's just standing here taking the blows for Christianity, doing his best to apologise and admit the validity of other people's questions, while the non-Christians seem to just be standing there inflexibly, willing to throw out monkeywrench after monkeywrench, while refusing to admit the potential "maybe it could be" validity of a single Christian viewpoint.

Anyway, I've hesitated to get involved here, and I think there's something about anti-Christian thought in general that I could learn from this...

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

But myths nevertheless. And accepting that fact surely does not in itself mean that one must relinquish one's belief in God.

If that is your convinced opinion, Master Saucepan Man, nothing that I say is very likely to change it. However, allow me to try and explain WHY we take the Bible- or most of the Bible, anyway- as fact, or close to fact. (For most Christians are not fundamentalists. We admit the existence of story and metaphor- something that Balrog-wingers do not... )

In the 4th Century, the Church in an Ecumenical Council, selected the books today known as the Bible, assembled them officially into one, and declared -using their authority as the representatives of God on Earth- that these books were the Inspired Word of God. This was not done hastily, but after careful consideration, and the books they canonised were by and large books that had been held in reverence by Christians since they were written- or in the case of the Old Testament, since Christ Himself.

If you do not adhere to the Christian faith, there is no reason in the world for you to believe the Bible. If you DO claim to be a follower of Jesus Christ, then it would be well to exhaust all the options open to you BEFORE deciding that the Inspired Word of God is a "myth", "legend", or "distorting of the truth".

[davem]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

LMP has bravely stuck it out, but for the most part it feels like he's just standing here taking the blows for Christianity, doing his best to apologise and admit the validity of other people's questions, while the non-Christians seem to just be standing there inflexibly, willing to throw out monkeywrench after monkeywrench, while refusing to admit the potential "maybe it could be" validity of a single Christian viewpoint.

The warnings about 'pearls before swine' spring to mind. Unfortunately, if you stand up & declare your faith someone is going to challenge you on it, even say nasty things about it.

My feeling is that all things should be open to criticism. If there is a logical explanation for something that can be offered. Events like the slaughter of the Canaanites, or the willingness of Abraham to sacrifice his son, (or Balaam's particularly talented donkey come to that) are 'challenges' to Christians. 'How can a loving God demand such things' they will ask themselves & struggle to find the answers through prayer. Ironically, non-Christians will ask themselves exactly the same question & decide there's no point trying to answer them & decide to just forget the whole thing.

Now, what's interesting is that in Tolkien & Philip Pullman we see these two approaches set out in the form of Secondary worlds. Tolkien attempts to explain through his Legendarium how God/Eru could be a loving creator & at the same time permit suffering to exist. He shows us the extreme of evil but still clearly states that both Eru & His creation are Good' (though Marred by evil). Tolkien refuses to give glib answers.

Pullman, on the other hand, sees the evil & suffering in the world & decides God is a senile old so-&-so, & we need to be rid of Him once & for all so we can take over & run the show ourselves.

Perhaps the difference is down to what you give priority to - if you focus on the evil & suffering in the world you'll decide that either there isn't a God at all, or that if there is he's like the one Pullman depicted & live in hope of the consumation depicted in HDM.

If you focus on God you'll see evil as ultimately insignificant because God was, is, & will be, & 'all shall be well, & all shall be well, & all manner of thing shall be well'. Both sides seem to be looking at the same thing but from different perspectives.

[Mithalwen]

I certainly have not intended to be anti-christianity. I have no truck with fundamentalism - but that is fundamentalist anything.

I respect faith but I resent faith being claimed as incontrovertable fact. You, as a well informed believer, could not surely think your that your cause would be better off if such ignorance as was displayed earlier in the thread went unchallenged?

The Bible may have been fixed in the 4th century but human knowledge wasn't. If it has to be taken "all or nothing", then many of us are going to have to say "nothing". However as I pointed out, many sincere Christians don't believe it is all or nothing and are able to reconcile their faith with modern learning and are motivated by their faith to great things. On the other hand, the fundamentalist attitude of "We're definitely right and the rest of you are not only wrong but going to roast in hell" is liable to put peoples' backs up.....

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by davem

The warnings about 'pearls before swine' spring to mind. Unfortunately, if you stand up & declare your faith someone is going to challenge you on it, even say nasty things about it.

Which is why I was doing my best to ignore this thread...

It's all very well for people to challenge my faith. That's fine, that's normal. To say nasty things is fine, is normal.

But for people who are positioning themselves as enlightened, fair-minded, as thinkers who are "simply trying to look at things objectively" to repeatedly and unabashedly beat down something that simply doesn't sit with their deep-seated anti-absolutist preferences without even considering that there MAY be something to it, doesn't smack at all of fair play.

However, I'm not trying to start any fights here so much as I am trying to get the point across that I'm distinctly uncomfortable with the attitudes here. Not the statements- I can handle challenges and assaults- but the general feeling that the people who are being intransigent in their opinions aren't the Christians, but the ones who really don't come across as Christian...

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

I respect faith but I resent faith being claimed as incontrovertable fact. You, as a well informed believer, could not surely think your that your cause would be better off if such ignorance as was displayed earlier in the thread went unchallenged?

Quite. However, at the same time, you have to remember that I consider the fact that "Jesus Christ was Crucified, Died, and was Buried, and that He Rose Again from the Dead" to be as equally truthful a fact as "Catholics are Christian". On the same note, I also think that "the Bible is God's Inspired Word" is as equally true a fact.

The Bible may have been fixed in the 4th century but human knowledge wasn't.

I'm not saying it was. I'm saying that the Bible, irregardless of when it was rubber-stamped by the Church, is God's Word. Human knowledge can go forward or backwards as far as it likes, but God's Word will remain God's Word, and an Ecumenical Council's authority is non-reversible on matters of faith. It wouldn't matter if Neanderthals had taken part in the Council, it would still be considered as binding, because a Council is the work of the Holy Spirit, not the work of mankind.

If it has to be taken "all or nothing", then many of us are going to have to say "nothing". However as I pointed out, many sincere Christians don't believe it is all or nothing and are able to reconcile their faith with modern learning and are motivated by their faith to great things. On the other hand, the fundamentalist attitude of "We're definitely right and the rest of you are not only wrong but going to roast in hell" is liable to put peoples' backs up.....

Then take it as nothing, if you must.

Believing that something is definitely right is not, of itself, going to get you into Heaven. Nor is believing something that is wrong going to send you to Hell. The Devil knows all the Right answers, he knows and believes God exists, and you ask him what the correct doctrine is on any matter, he'd be able to give as good or better an answer than any theologian.

But the Devil won't get into Heaven.

However, although Heaven and Hell is NOT an issue that is dependent on what you know or believe, that does not mean that a proper knowledge of what is and what isn't is to be considered completely trivial. To get into Heaven is to love God and to love man. If one loves God, then one will want to do everything the way God would want it, correct?

Now, with regards to the Abraham/Isaac/God situation...

It is very amusing to watch people ascribe modern thoughts and feelings to a very much not-modern event. Saucepan Man might very well be justified in telling a God who wants him to kill his children to shove it, but Sauce is a product of 1500+ years of Christianity being the dominant force shaping the morals of his culture. Abraham lived in day when the rational thought of the Greek philosophers had yet to start influencing us, and when child-sacrifice was NOT uncommon at all in the religions of the day. So although WE, products of Christianity that we are, would have some major issues with God asking us to sacrifice Isaac, Abraham, though undoubtedly sorrowed beyond words, would not have the same impulses.

Furthermore, it isn't exactly as if God was asking Abraham anything that He Himself would never go through. Not only was God's request reasonable from Abraham's cultural mindset, but God showed Abraham once and for all what absolute faith would be rewarded with: life, though we might have to go through death for it. Also, note the lamb... Abraham killed the lamb to spare Isaac. God killed His Son to spare us all.

Anyway, this is getting dangerously far off-Tolkien...

[davem]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Anyway, this is getting dangerously far off-Tolkien...

You see, I'm not sure it is. For a while I've toyed with the idea of suggesting an 'Inklings' type discussion group on the Downs. The disucssion we've been having here strikes me as the kind of thing that would have gone on in Lewis' rooms in Magdelene on Thursday nights. Given what we know of Tolkien's love of getting together with companions & discussing all kinds of subjects in depth - particularly myth, religion & fairy story, but also current events philosophy & the meaning of existence - I don't see how our current debate could be considered 'unTolkien' at all. There was a great deal more to Tolkien than Middle-earth. If his religion shaped his thinking & worldview I don't see how a discussion of that subject is 'off-topic' at all.

But being able to put forth an argument & defend it against all-comers was central to the Inklings. If you make a statement, religious or otherwise, you have to be able to defend it against challengers. You can certainly opt out of any discussion if you feel it is hitting too close to home, but you aren't allowed to state something & then say, 'That's it! No more discussion, no more questions or challenges!' If you enter the Inklings arena you have to be prepared to fight your corner. You may say that a particular point was expressed in a way you find 'offensive' or upsetting & ask your opponent to kindly rephrase it in a more polite, respectful way, but if they do that then the point must be answered.

Your point re Abraham & Isaac is a good one. Certainly God's requirement of Abraham must (if you are a Christian) be seen & judged in the light of Christ's sacrifice. In fact, that is the only point of view from which it becomes acceptable. Without that it becomes the nasty little test of a smug, self righteous Deity - same with His ranting at Job - only the suffering & sacrifice of Christ can make the behaviour of the God of the old testament in anyway acceptable. His words via the Prophets may be of love & compassion but are only platitudes without Golgotha.

Except .... I'm just spouting clever sounding words there, because I'm not a Christian. I adopted a Christian viewpoint for a moment. In fact, I could have argued from a Christian perspective all along & put forward (as I've done in the past) a whole series of 'proofs' of the innate Christianity of LotR.

This is not an admission of any 'dishonesty' in previous posts. I responded honestly to each particular point made. I can see, if I choose, numerous correspondences between LotR & the Christian faith, but I can also look at the work another way & see none. Hence, I still hold that the work cannot be considered a 'Christian' work, though it can be seen & interpreted in that way. I'm sure one could come at it from a Moslem perspective, or a Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist or Pagan one & find enough in it to confirm it as a work entirely within that particular faith's worldview.

This is the problem with threads like this. Once you move away from the direct experience of the story & into 'interpretation' you'll find exactly what you're looking for.

In other words, its only a 'Christian' story if a Christian reads it....

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

to repeatedly and unabashedly beat down something that simply doesn't sit with their deep-seated anti-absolutist preferences without even considering that there MAY be something to it, doesn't smack at all of fair play.

Not the statements- I can handle challenges and assaults- but the general feeling that the people who are being intransigent in their opinions aren't the Christians, but the ones who really don't come across as Christian...

while the non-Christians seem to just be standing there inflexibly, willing to throw out monkeywrench after monkeywrench, while refusing to admit the potential "maybe it could be" validity of a single Christian viewpoint.

Well. If one keeps your "neutral" terms: deep-seated preferences, without even considering, being intransigent in opinion, standing inflexibly, refusing to admit the potential of a single (other) viewpoint etc. - and then changes terms like 'christian' or 'absolutist' to something else...

Sorry Formendacil, but I don't think your own texts meet the standards you seem to be requiring from others...

I know many flexible and open-minded christians - as I know some inflexible and narrow-minded non-believers. That's not the case: all differences between groups are always smaller than the differences inside any given group.

It just sounds nasty to call open-mindedness from others, and then bang the others with the Truth...

[Lalaith]

I am not a practising Christian, but I am in no way antagonistic towards religion, in fact I am very open to it, and I have many close friends, whose views and whose intelligence I respect, who are practising Christians - mostly Catholics, as a matter of fact.

However, I do think we are dealing with a cultural divide here as well as a religious one. Most of the Christians I know here in the UK, and elsewhere in northern Europe, do not believe in the Bible as literal, word-for-word truth. In other words, they accept evolution and so on. I don't think many of them believe in Hell, either.
But I get the feeling that literal/fundamentalist/Scripture-based brands of Christianity are the most dominant in the US. So while many posters here are questioning Biblical points, those questioners I note are mostly European.
This kind of questioning is quite normal in religious debate over here, and is really not meant as heretical, aggressive or anti-religious as it is clearly taken to be by some.
I hope this may help to calm the waters a little.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Elempi, if you don’t mind me saying so, you seem to be going through some fairly tortuous paths to explain some of these passages from the Bible.

What parts? If tortuous, that says more about my failure so far to sufficiently understand and explain than it does about God's porpose.

Originally Posted by SPM

And, as you appear to accept, they are merely theories, designed no doubt to make the unpalatable more acceptable to those who regard the Bible as fact but are uneasy about the rather “fire and brimstone” aspects of the Old Testament God.

It depends upon which one you refer to. Some of my replies are more theoretical, others are more strongly held and more defensible.

Originally Posted by SPM

(Which are, incidentally, quite out of keeping with his portrayal in the New Testament – did he, like many new fathers, undergo a personality change with the birth of his son?)

Hmm.... tortuous and 'out of keeping' are in the eye of the beholder, I suppose. After all, descriptions of the complexities of reality have always run the risk of seeming so. It should be said that 'tortuous' does not necessarily equal 'incorrect'.

Originally Posted by SPM

But the story of Abraham and his son has always struck me as quite horrific. God asked him to sacrifice his son – and he was just about to do it! OK, so God had no intention of Abraham actually killing his son, but even to ask him to do so is unpardonable in my view. Especially since he was merely seeking to test Abraham’s faith. He was effectively saying: “I am not sure if you believe in me, so kill your son to prove that you do”. Doesn’t that seem rather vain? My own reaction would undoubtedly have been: “Well, if that’s the kind of God that you are, I’d rather not believe in you, thank you very much”. And so, off to Hell with me simply because I was unwilling to kill my son (surely a sin in God’s eyes anyway). That just doesn’t seem right.

You're not Abraham. I can assure you that God will not put such a test to you any time soon, because you are not anywhere near the place with God, if all my reading of your words are any indication, that Abraham was when God tested him in this way. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it would be fair to say that God's test to you, SPM, is simple belief that a God who loves can allow evil into the world. Abraham had already exhibited faith to take God at his word to go to a foreign land with no certainty of wellbeing or future wealth, had been promised a son in his old age, by a wife almost as old as he, and had been established in his new land because he did believe. And God had actually spoken to him on numerous occasions so that there was a real and deep relationship. This final test was for Abraham to prove that he still put God before the son God had given him. Vain? No, because this test was not an end in itself. God had a purpose to save humans from themselves through this man's seed, and it was necessary that this man put God first in his life, or else God would have found it necessary to go find someone who would. Why did God need Abaraham to put Him first? Mary. There had to be a precedent and likelihood of people putting God first, a tradition of holiness, so that a young woman in the time of the Roman Empire would submit her body to the purpose of God. "Let it be to me as you have said." God never tests us for vanity. Such would be a misunderstanding of Him.

Originally Posted by SPM

Now, as I understand it, the traditional Christian approach is that one either accepts the Bible as a whole, or one does not accept it at all. And this is one of the things that has always troubled me about Christanity as a faith (and all faiths which adopt a similar approach). ...Why cannot Christians accept that not everything in the Bible is cast-iron fact, yet still maintain their faith in God?

LotR never claimed to be divine revelation. Tolkien would have been horrified. By contrast, the Bible speaks of itself as revelation from God, inspired by the Holy Spirit. If God is who he says He is in the Bible, then it is necessary to believe him as he presents himself. To disbelieve any of the Bible is to place human understanding as greater than God's revelation. There's a verse in the Bible that says "lean not on your own understanding, but upon every word that comes from the mouth of God". It's that kind of message that keeps some of us who follow Jesus saying to ourselves things like 'I don't understand it', but that says more about me than it does about what I'm reading. It is I who lack understanding, not God who lacks justice, or goodness, or what have you. Not long ago I tended toward a universalistic approach to the understanding of life after death. But then I made choice of "Okay, God, no more 'yeah buts'." I was humbled, finally stopped competing with God. (yeah, go figure, me competing with God ... how foolish can one get? ) Since I made that choice, so much that I used to misunderstand has become clear.

Originally Posted by SPM

And nor do I accept a God that is willing to relegate decent, law-abiding, moral people to Hell just because they don’t believe in Him or adhere to a particular way of worshipping him.

Decency, law-abidingness, and morality are not enough, nor are they the issue. It's all about who Jesus is.

I've answered this above. Those who have taken a more "flexible" approach (which included me until recently) have compromised their faith. How they can hold to what they do, without holding to the rest, is a rather tragic demonstration of irrationality.

Lhunardawen's answer is good as far as it goes. But faith should never be irrational. If someone believes that Jesus died and was raised by God, that person should be convinced based on the best reasoning he or she can muster.

Originally Posted by alatar

How do angels mate with humans, one creature being completely spirit while the other material? Sucubi/incubi perhaps? Or do fallen angels have some kind of inherent physicality?

As you comment yourself, this little problem didn't seem to bother Tolkien as it relates to Thingol and Melian. My sense is that angels apparently had the ability to incarnate. But even that is different from Jesus. They did not choose to humble themselves so as to be born of a woman. The New Testament speaks of Jesus' resurrection body in such a way that it seems to be perhaps more real than our own, as if maybe this is what could have been for Adam and Eve had they passed their test; but that last bit regarding Adam and Eve is speculation, of course.

Originally Posted by alatar

Though you may simply be stating what others have said, I agree that it's a bit convoluted and makes God seem less omnipotent as He must rely on human agents to execute peoples so that His plan will succeed.

This is a very important point. By allowing humans free will, God has necessarily placed limits upon his own omnipotence. This is rather frightening concept that most Christians don't want to try to get their minds around, but when you look at it, it's pretty obvious. What is also necessary to conclude from it, is that God is an exceedingly brilliant craftsGod (can't exactly say craftsman although we could about Jesus I suppose), in that he still works all of human free will with all of its mix of good and evil and chaos into his ultimate plan for the good of those that love him and keep his word.

Originally Posted by alatar

And just how does one destroy spiritual beings by breaking the material bodies?

They were not destroyed, but imprisoned. Check out 2 Petere 2:4-5.

Warning: speculation: regarding sub-human or super-human, I've been wondering these last few years about such myths as the minotaur, or hippogriffs, or what have you. Now, they may just be fantasy, but if one posits the power of fallen angelic beings to incarnate as they wish and commit whatever unspeakable acts they wish to, who knows what might not result? But as I said, that's just speculation.

As to "literally": Where the Bible speaks literally, I read it literally. Where is speaks metaphorically, I read it so. Where it speaks mythically, I so read it; however, I take my lead from Tolkien and do not equate myth with falsehood.

Originally Posted by Bethberry

...the developing stages of a people's awareness of what or who God is.

I think this aspect is there to be found in the bible, but this does not remove (what I understand to be) the reality of its divine inspiration.

Originally Posted by Bethberry

One problem with this POV is that is sounds similar to arrogant assumptions about human progress.

This is something I wrestle with. What I come down to is that I will inevitably be seen as arrogant by some people, and that is something I have no control over. What I can control is what I say and write. By accepting the Bible on its own terms, as God's word, I am led to certain honest conclusions with all due humility, aware that it seems like arrogance to some.

Originally Posted by Bb

The other problem with this approach to revelation is that it tends to understand the Old Testament solely in terms of the terms set out in the New Testament. There's misrepresentation here.

I suppose this could be viewed as a problem. I don't. I take my lead from Jesus who said he and the Kingdom of God were the fulfillment of the OT.

Tolkien's insistence is all the more perplexing given that the Church never insisted upon conversion of a heathen partner. It required a promise that children be brought up Catholic, but it never forced conversion on the partner as a condition of marriage. Strange that Tolkien who was so anti-bullying in LotR should have been so demanding in this instance. ... Does that tombstone, stating Luthien and Beren, imply something here?

Now there's a fascinating thought! Anyway, Tolkien's insistence in this one case, being as odd for him as it was, emphasizes the importance with which he viewed it.

Hell is probably the single most difficult stumbling block. I realize that no matter what I say with this one, it's going to seem like an insult. I can't help that, and I don't mean it that way. I had a bit of an epiphany that hell is actually best seen as God's final grace to those who refuse him. 'What about the fire and brimstone?' you may ask, or the lake of fire? Here's a case in which I see those things as metaphorical. Hell is best understood as the absence of God. Not that God is absent from anywhere in existence; but humans have this unusual gift that they can choose not to be a part of God's reality. It's stunning, really. But God does finally say to some, "Your will be done; exist for eternity without Me." I can imagine this feeling like a lake of fire, or like fire and brimstone, especially if the person must live with the regret of "if only I had allowed him in, but I finally know better." That's hell enough.

Originally Posted by Formy

LMP has bravely stuck it out, but for the most part it feels like he's just standing here taking the blows for Christianity, doing his best to apologise and admit the validity of other people's questions, while the non-Christians seem to just be standing there inflexibly, willing to throw out monkeywrench after monkeywrench, while refusing to admit the potential "maybe it could be" validity of a single Christian viewpoint.

I had to laugh about this. However, I don't see it quite that way. I'm more than happy to entertain the questions, tough as some of them are. Wrestling with them honestly helps me to understand my faith better, and it just doesn't matter what the motivations are of others on this thread. I'm responsible for mine alone. But thanks for the support, Formy. As to everything else you said, I say 'yes'.

There's a certain sense in which I think the 'pearls before swine' analogy is not apt to this thread. Swine were unclean, and content to live in their filth, and were apt to mistake pearls for more of their filth. Given that all who post here have a high regard for Tolkien, I would say that the analogy does not obtain, on that merit alone. Must run..... dinner and a conference...... back later.....

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by davem

You see, I'm not sure it is. For a while I've toyed with the idea of suggesting an 'Inklings' type discussion group on the Downs. The disucssion we've been having here strikes me as the kind of thing that would have gone on in Lewis' rooms in Magdelene on Thursday nights. Given what we know of Tolkien's love of getting together with companions & discussing all kinds of subjects in depth - particularly myth, religion & fairy story, but also current events philosophy & the meaning of existence - I don't see how our current debate could be considered 'unTolkien' at all. There was a great deal more to Tolkien than Middle-earth. If his religion shaped his thinking & worldview I don't see how a discussion of that subject is 'off-topic' at all.

Well, perhaps "non-Middle-Earth" is a better way to put it...

If the Mods have no issues with rampant discussion... fine by me. But, as currently defined- or as I currently understand it- it's getting off-topic.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Well. If one keeps your "neutral" terms: deep-seated preferences, without even considering, being intransigent in opinion, standing inflexibly, refusing to admit the potential of a single (other) viewpoint etc. - and then changes terms like 'christian' or 'absolutist' to something else...

Sorry Formendacil, but I don't think your own texts meet the standards you seem to be requiring from others...

I wondered if anyone would bring up those words of mine...

Perhaps it's my fault for being unable to express perfectly, concisely, and politely what I'm trying to say.

However, I hold to what I said: in general, on this thread, the Christian group (or just LMP, since he has comprised most of it, to date) has been a lot more willing to give and take, to say "you have a point".

I'm not saying that one group has been, or ought to be, accepting the other group as right. I'm not even saying the Christian group is right (although as a card-carrying member, I obviously feel that way). What I am saying is that the Christian group has thus far been more willing to say "you have a point" whereas the non-Christian group hasn't been willing to say that.

As noted, however, that is simply things as I am seeing them- on this thread. Possibly my vision is being coloured by the side of the fence that I'm on.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

I know many flexible and open-minded christians - as I know some inflexible and narrow-minded non-believers. That's not the case: all differences between groups are always smaller than the differences inside any given group.

It just sounds nasty to call open-mindedness from others, and then bang the others with the Truth...

So you're calling me nasty then?

That's fine with me. That's not how I intended it... but it's.... fine.

It's a call to take a closer look at what I am trying to say...

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by LMP

As to "literally": Where the Bible speaks literally, I read it literally. Where is speaks metaphorically, I read it so. Where it speaks mythically, I so read it; however, I take my lead from Tolkien and do not equate myth with falsehood.

Well, this is a bit of a sticking point, I would think, as I doubt if there is general concensus about where it is literal, where symbolic, where metaphorical. I rather liked the explanation of the Catholic sense of letter and meaning (the article used the terms signifier and signified) in the article I referred to above.

Originally Posted by LMP

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bethberry
One problem with this POV is that is sounds similar to arrogant assumptions about human progress. [end quote of Bb]

This is something I wrestle with. What I come down to is that I will inevitably be seen as arrogant by some people, and that is something I have no control over. What I can control is what I say and write. By accepting the Bible on its own terms, as God's word, I am led to certain honest conclusions with all due humility, aware that it seems like arrogance to some.

I want to make sure that my words aren't misunderstood. What I was referring to with the term "this POV" was this idea I presented of historically unfolding understanding. I was acknowledging a problem with the idea I presented, rather than suggesting anyone else's ideas were arrogant.

To return this to Tolkien more specifically:

I've seen a scholarly claim that Tolkien is acknowledged in the work done to produce The New Jerusalem Bible. I don't know what the extent of his contributions, if any, were. Does anyone?

If we can find any of Tolkien's professional articles or opinions I think it might be interesting to explore them. After all, we know how important words were to him and languages. We know how he fulminated against inaccurate or misrepresentative translations of LotR. How did he view work on the translation of the Bible? After all, it was first in Aramaic, no? And then Greek and Latin versions became dominant before translations into the vernacular. Figuring out just which words are inspired is a handful. I know many people who profess a great love for the King James Bible because of its aesthetic or lyrical beauty, but anyone who has read even a little bit about the history of biblical translation knows that compromise and historical/political pressures are part of translation.

But I get a very strong feeling that we are once again treading on canonicity grounds.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

To return this to Tolkien more specifically:

I've seen a scholarly claim that Tolkien is acknowledged in the work done to produce The New Jerusalem Bible. I don't know what the extent of his contributions, if any, were. Does anyone?

Tolkien did indeed contribute to the Jerusalem Bible (not the New one, but the original one- in English). You'll find his name in the "credits". I would know... I've looked.

However, he considered his contribution quite small. I believe he only worked on the Book of Jonah, which is a mere four chapters long.

If we can find any of Tolkien's professional articles or opinions I think it might be interesting to explore them. After all, we know how important words were to him and languages. We know how he fulminated against inaccurate or misrepresentative translations of LotR. How did he view work on the translation of the Bible? After all, it was first in Aramaic, no? And then Greek and Latin versions became dominant before translations into the vernacular. Figuring out just which words are inspired is a handful. I know many people who profess a great love for the King James Bible because of its aesthetic or lyrical beauty, but anyone who has read even a little bit about the history of biblical translation knows that compromise and historical/political pressures are part of translation.

I've never read anywhere what Tolkien's views on Biblical translation were, but I think one can assume that they were fairly similar to his LotR ones, except possibly with regard to the treatment of names. He did, after all, feel that the English names of the Hobbits should remain unchanged in the translations, but I do not see him advocating "Christus" or "Cephas" or "Paulus" for the Biblical "Christ", "Peter", or "Paul".

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

There's a certain sense in which I think the 'pearls before swine' analogy is not apt to this thread. Swine were unclean, and content to live in their filth, and were apt to mistake pearls for more of their filth. Given that all who post here have a high regard for Tolkien, I would say that the analogy does not obtain, on that merit alone. Must run..... dinner and a conference...... back later.....

Actually, pigs are highly intelligent & scrupulously clean animals - its only human farming methods which have created the image of the pig as a 'dirty' creature.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

Actually, pigs are highly intelligent & scrupulously clean animals - its only human farming methods which have created the image of the pig as a 'dirty' creature.

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

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

[Mithalwen]

Formendacil, I think you are taking this too persionally.
" you have to remember that I consider the fact that "Jesus Christ was Crucified, Died, and was Buried, and that He Rose Again from the Dead" to be as equally truthful a fact as "Catholics are Christian". On the same note, I also think that "the Bible is God's Inspired Word" is as equally true a fact."

Similarly you have to be aware that the one is objective, the second at least 2/3 historically almost certain, the third is subjective. I have no problem with you believing this.

As for the next bit well, I no longer believe in an afterlife so .... whatever.. I will carry on trying to live as good a live as I can in this one.


" It is very amusing to watch people ascribe modern thoughts and feelings to a very much not-modern event. " And yet the fundamentalist expect a very much not modern collection of tects to be applied to modern day lives without the interpretation and rationalisation that you have applied to the story of Abraham and Isaac....

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

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

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

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

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

[The Saucepan Man]

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

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

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

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

Finally, for now:

Originally Posted by Elempi

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

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

[alatar]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

As you comment yourself, this little problem didn't seem to bother Tolkien as it relates to Thingol and Melian. My sense is that angels apparently had the ability to incarnate.

I've read up on the matter a bit, and it's definitely not clear whether fallen angels have the ability to incarnate. Jude 6 seems to state that the fallen ones are not even around, having been chained as was Melkor. On the other hand, Jacob (Israel) wrestles with a being that can bless him, and the angels at Sodom had physicality enough to attract some unwanted attention, but in these examples seemingly these are not angels of the fallen sort. In the New Testament we have demonic possession and less, if any, children of the 'sons of God' (as in Genesis 6) . What's even a bit more confusing is that the Nephalim are considered "heroes of old," which to me seems to be placing them in a somewhat positive light. If the fallen could produce hybrid offspring, then why not the unfallen doing the same to provide a counter? It's not clear, and so I will quit the point as I'm not sure what else to say. But thanks for your thoughts.

The angels, the maia, in Arda can incarnate yet do not mate with humans, at least directly. I guess the elves are something of a hybrid, allowing Melian's spirit/blood to flow in Aragorn's veins. Did Tolkien have this superbeing/human pairing because he too believed that Genesis 6 spoke of angels mating with humans?

By allowing humans free will, God has necessarily placed limits upon his own omnipotence. This is rather frightening concept that most Christians don't want to try to get their minds around, but when you look at it, it's pretty obvious.

As a finite being that is so out of my league it's hard to comment, as I think that you've just said is that the infinite imposes limits on itself. That's one big rock it can't move!

They were not destroyed, but imprisoned. Check out 2 Peter 2:4-5.

My point was that if, as you state, that they are to be imprisoned or were imprisoned, then what is the need to drown them?

Warning: speculation: regarding sub-human or super-human, I've been wondering these last few years about such myths as the minotaur, or hippogriffs, or what have you. Now, they may just be fantasy, but if one posits the power of fallen angelic beings to incarnate as they wish and commit whatever unspeakable acts they wish to, who knows what might not result? But as I said, that's just speculation.

That's interesting that you see it through that lens, as I too have wondered what put those ideas into people's heads, but instead of considering fallen angels as a source, would consider some unusual animal that, with the passage of time, took on a more impossible visage. I've always wondered what our lives would be like back then, when one permitted oneself more time in which to dream and name clouds.

With the 24/7 media blitz in which we live today, could something as spectacular as LotR even make it to the presses? Or would Professor Tolkien be blogging instead?

Hell is probably the single most difficult stumbling block. I realize that no matter what I say with this one, it's going to seem like an insult. I can't help that, and I don't mean it that way. I had a bit of an epiphany that hell is actually best seen as God's final grace to those who refuse him. 'What about the fire and brimstone?' you may ask, or the lake of fire? Here's a case in which I see those things as metaphorical. Hell is best understood as the absence of God. Not that God is absent from anywhere in existence; but humans have this unusual gift that they can choose not to be a part of God's reality. It's stunning, really. But God does finally say to some, "Your will be done; exist for eternity without Me." I can imagine this feeling like a lake of fire, or like fire and brimstone, especially if the person must live with the regret of "if only I had allowed him in, but I finally know better." That's hell enough.

Hell actually makes sense. You don't want to be with God; fine, have it your way. Like has been said, to truly say yes you must have the option to say no. And just where do unrepentent men in Middle Earth, or say those like the Mouth of Sauron, go when they die?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Tolkien did indeed contribute to the Jerusalem Bible (not the New one, but the original one- in English). You'll find his name in the "credits". I would know... I've looked.

However, he considered his contribution quite small. I believe he only worked on the Book of Jonah, which is a mere four chapters long.



I've never read anywhere what Tolkien's views on Biblical translation were, but I think one can assume that they were fairly similar to his LotR ones, except possibly with regard to the treatment of names. He did, after all, feel that the English names of the Hobbits should remain unchanged in the translations, but I do not see him advocating "Christus" or "Cephas" or "Paulus" for the Biblical "Christ", "Peter", or "Paul".

Thanks for your reply, Formendacil. What I was wondering about is more Tolkien's thoughts on the authority of the translations. It pertains to the original question here--as much to LotR as to the Bible (not that The Professor ever claimed LotR was the word of God): how do we or where do we ground our interpretations? I seem to recall a letter of Tolkien's wherein he states his sense of how he was not creating the stories but discovering them. (I don't have the Letters to hand right now.) I wonder if it is worth while considering just what he meant?

btw, there's a bit on inspiration in Catholic Encyclopedia: The Inspiration of the Bible. I hadn't realized that, according to this article:

Originally Posted by CE

The belief in the sacred character of certain books is as old as the Hebrew literature. . . . The gospel contains no express declaration about the origin and value of the Scriptures, but in it we see that Jesus Christ used them in conformity with the general belief, i.e. as the Word of God.

It is one of those interesting studies of what aspects of the OT were taken up in the NT and what aspects left behind.

Originally Posted by SaucepanMan

although I am not sure that there really are "sides" as such, merely a collection of varying approaches, beliefs, attitudes)

And I want to say, in support of SpM's comment, that I also don't see a hard and fast "one side/t'other side" here, but a range of ways of looking at the question of how little or how closely or how much did Tolkien base his Legendarium on biblical events and when or why did he choose instead to incorporate northern mythologies. We have one answer in the point that Tokien felt there was some kind of family inheritance in dreaming about floods and another in Tolkien's comment that he wished to avoid the appearance of parody. Add to that the idea that a text should or ought to be or is best when it is sufficient unto itself, at least on a first experience of it.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Formendacil, I think you are taking this too persionally.

It's my life, what can I say? If I take it personally, it's because it is personal... though that really doesn't mean that I should GET personal.

Similarly you have to be aware that the one is objective, the second at least 2/3 historically almost certain, the third is subjective. I have no problem with you believing this.

Okay... I'm really curious how Catholicism being Christianity is only "at least 2/3 historically certain"- and not because I wish to argue the matter, but in light you being the first one (if I recall) to point out to Legolas-I-S that Catholics are Christian... Very curious indeed....

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

As for the next bit well, I no longer believe in an afterlife so .... whatever.. I will carry on trying to live as good a live as I can in this one.

I cannot express my utter dread and horror at the idea of not having an afterlife. What POINT is there to life, if this short span -so easily ended in a car accident or a medical breakdown- is all we get.

Call me whatever you like... the very idea gives me the jibblies.

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

" It is very amusing to watch people ascribe modern thoughts and feelings to a very much not-modern event. " And yet the fundamentalist expect a very much not modern collection of tects to be applied to modern day lives without the interpretation and rationalisation that you have applied to the story of Abraham and Isaac....

Well, I'm not a fundamentalist... I subscribe, perhaps, to a more literal interpretation of things than several of you here appear to, but I wouldn't call it a fundamentalist's position. Context, both within the writing and when it was written, has to be taken into account.

Originally Posted by SPM

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

I think Mormegil may have very well been right in saying, in Werewolf, that I like to live on the edge... I've roused up a good deal more debate/noise than I needed to by posting as I did on this thread...

Saying that you are guided by reason, rather than faith, makes me laugh at the moment. I'm sorry- it's not the statement itself, but the context I find myself in when I read it. Blame it on a book I just read. Basically, it set about showing how RATIONAL a faith Christianity is, and it got my mind thinking quite a bit about lately about just how true that is. But I won't go about proving that on this thread, since that's not really what it's for, even if it remains an Inklings-esque discussion. However, if you're interested in a more private venue...

Anyway, I found that ironically amusing, coming at the time that it did...

[davem]

Originally Posted by LMP

Warning: speculation: regarding sub-human or super-human, I've been wondering these last few years about such myths as the minotaur, or hippogriffs, or what have you. Now, they may just be fantasy, but if one posits the power of fallen angelic beings to incarnate as they wish and commit whatever unspeakable acts they wish to, who knows what might not result? But as I said, that's just speculation.

I think you're falling into a trap of your own making here - trying to force all other mythologies to fit within the limitations of the Biblical account. Minotaurs, Hippogriffs, Unicorns & the like do not belong in the Biblical world, anymore than Hobbits or Elves do. This is the problem with seeing the Biblical account as the Archetype from which all other mythologies 'devolved'. The main problem with the Judeo-Christian approach is its division of all things/beings into good or evil. In the myths from which these creatures came they are not all 'evil' - most are 'neutral', or even 'Good'. But if you try & force them into a Judeo-Christian model you will find it very hard to place them on the side of the Angels & inevitably end up 'demonising' them - which is in fact what happened with the Old Gods & Goddesses, the old scared places, the old tales - as I pointed out.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

I cannot express my utter dread and horror at the idea of not having an afterlife. What POINT is there to life, if this short span -so easily ended in a car accident or a medical breakdown- is all we get.

Call me whatever you like... the very idea gives me the jibblies.

That doesn't cause me a problem, actually. The idea of just going on & on & on, for ever & ever & ever would seem equally 'hellish'. Anyway, worrying about what happens after death is about the best guarantee of not living a fulfilling life as I can think of. Of course, Christianity is by no means the only religion that offers a promise of an after-life, & I think I actually prefer some of the Pagan visions of an afterdeath state - the Wiccan idea of the Summerlands is very appealing for instance. Whatever, I have always had a deep sense of trust in God, or the Universe, or whatever label you want to stick on it, & whether I continue in some way after death or not has no effect on that.

Hell actually makes sense.

No it doesn't. It would require God to just shrug His shoulders at the suffering of His children. Meister Eckhart posited that Hell is non-existence - God can only know the Good, & to the extent that he is aware of any Good in anything He will hold it in existence (or in Eckhart's theology He will 'continue to create it's existence') - therefore it is not in Hell. If, however, an individual were, through its own choices, to cease to have any good in it, God would cease to be aware of them & of their need to be constantly 'created' & they would simply cease to be. This would not involve 'punishment' or rejection by God, or damnation, etc, it would simply happen.

Basically, it set about showing how RATIONAL a faith Christianity is, and it got my mind thinking quite a bit about lately about just how true that is.

I'm sure the followers of all religions could show how 'rational' their belief is - it just depends on how you define 'rational'.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

It's my life, what can I say? If I take it personally, it's because it is personal... though that really doesn't mean that I should GET personal.

Hope that you've taken all that I've posted as a 'questioning,' not an attack.

I cannot express my utter dread and horror at the idea of not having an afterlife. What POINT is there to life, if this short span -so easily ended in a car accident or a medical breakdown- is all we get. Call me whatever you like... the very idea gives me the jibblies.

After a time you figure that this is all we have, and so you better get it done now, and that when you're dead, you're dead. Now, I understand grace and works and all, but consider: I choose to live a moral and honorable life (hopefully as an example for my children, and note that I preemptively and unequivocally state here and now that I have my flaws as well, like not loving PJ's films 100% ) not for any future reward, and despite thinking that this four score is all we get. Some who believe likewise may choose hedonism, and many think that without God or a god or an afterlife that that's where we'd all be, but knowing that one day I will be stardust or worm food or whathaveyou still doesn't make me deviate from the straight and narrow way. To me it's just a simpler way to live - I'm lazy - and those who've had some science may understand it as the lowest energy state.

Compare that to some who believe in a reward.

Saying that you are guided by reason, rather than faith, makes me laugh at the moment. I'm sorry- it's not the statement itself, but the context I find myself in when I read it. Blame it on a book I just read. Basically, it set about showing how RATIONAL a faith Christianity is, and it got my mind thinking quite a bit about lately about just how true that is. But I won't go about proving that on this thread, since that's not really what it's for, even if it remains an Inklings-esque discussion. However, if you're interested in a more private venue...

I enjoy the rationality of Christianity, until, that is, we come to the 'faith boundary,' then there is where we part company. Not that science is completely free of bias and hubris and opinion and argument from authority - it has its warts too. I just am bothered when a completely logical and fact-based argument makes some pretzel twist to hit the only permissible target in the end.

I too welcome PM discussion if anyone so desires (or if I'm beating dead equine or steering the thread into a boring corner).

[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

No it doesn't. It would require God to just shrug His shoulders at the suffering of His children.

At some point the Father must say, enough, you've made your choice, and though I love you, I will abide by your wishes, self-destructive as they may be. Does God hold us captive if we choose not to be with Him?

Meister Eckhart posited that Hell is non-existence - God can only know the Good, & to the extent that he is aware of any Good in anything He will hold it in existence (or in Eckhart's theology He will 'continue to create it's existence') - therefore it is not in Hell.

But God knows the Devil (they talk at times), and as the creator of all things, must have created this Hell as well. As you and Eckhart say, maybe Hell is non-existance, but what does that exactly mean to a being that is not limited by time or space? You once existed, and so must still exist somewhere in God's view. Maybe that what Hell is, being trapped in God's RAM.

Or does God dump you down the memory hole, and this begs the question: can an omniscient omnipresent god will itself to forget something? Sorry, but don't have enough coffee for that one.

If, however, an individual were, through its own choices, to cease to have any good in it, God would cease to be aware of them & of their need to be constantly 'created' & they would simply cease to be. This would not involve 'punishment' or rejection by God, or damnation, etc, it would simply happen.

The assumption is that God is absolutely Good, and so cannot fathom one degree of unGood? All of the Christian God's subjects/children are by definition ungood, yet exist. Maybe I'm just not seeing it.

I'm sure the followers of all religions could show how 'rational' their belief is - it just depends on how you define 'rational'.

Agreed. Great thing about this forum is that I've learned that people are so different. Why, some even think that Balrogs have wings.

[Mithalwen]

[QUOTE=Formendacil]It's my life, what can I say? If I take it personally, it's because it is personal... though that really doesn't mean that I should GET personal

Okay... I'm really curious how Catholicism being Christianity is only "at least 2/3 historically certain"- and not because I wish to argue the matter, but in light you being the first one (if I recall) to point out to Legolas-I-S that Catholics are Christian... Very curious indeed....

I cannot express my utter dread and horror at the idea of not having an afterlife. What POINT is there to life, if this short span -so easily ended in a car accident or a medical breakdown- is all we get.

Call me whatever you like... the very idea gives me the jibblies.

Well, I'm not a fundamentalist... I subscribe, perhaps, to a more literal interpretation of things than several of you here appear to, but I wouldn't call it a fundamentalist's position. Context, both within the writing and when it was written, has to be taken into account.

QUOTE]

Rightio, first of all please bear in mind that I shoved my ten pennorth in to this thread partly because I felt that a certain person's ludicrous statement was potentially offensive to Catholics ..... not everyone who is not with you is against you..... but I beginning to wish I had kept my woolly liberal mouth shut.

Second "Jesus Christ was Crucified, Died, and was Buried, and that He Rose Again from the Dead" was the thing I referred to as being 2/3 certain, Catholics being Christians as objective fact and the status of the Bible as being subjective. Actually I should have said 3/4 but I was in a rush and lumped dead and buried together. pretty good historical evidence for the Life and death of Jesus and for all my issues with taking the bible to literally (and I have a whole load more having read some of the Old Testament last night as research!!!) I used to be able to say the creed in good conscience.

This life ain't so bad - and anyone able to surf the net isn't doing badly on the scheme of things. I have had some difficult thing happen as most people do if they live long enough, but I don't want to go in to that now or the reasons for my lapse - if you want to know PM me - but you appreciate it so much more if you think it is all you are going to get. I am so much happier now I no longer beat myself up for my failure to be perfect. I don't behave any less morally now than I did but I certainly seize the day more rather than banking on an afterlife to make up for the bad sides of this life. It would be lovely to believe I would be reunited after death with those I have loved and lost but I can't. Believing this life is all there is doen't have to turn you in to a selfish hedonist it can make you more compassionate and concerned with people's immediate needs rather than their eternal salvation - isn't he Christian Aid slogan "We believe in life before death"....

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Rightio, first of all please bear in mind that I shoved my ten pennorth in to this thread partly because I felt that a certain person's ludicrous statement was potentially offensive to Catholics ..... not everyone who is not with you is against you..... but I beginning to wish I had kept my woolly liberal mouth shut.

Second "Jesus Christ was Crucified, Died, and was Buried, and that He Rose Again from the Dead" was the thing I referred to as being 2/3 certain, Catholics being Christians as objective fact and the status of the Bible as being subjective. Actually I should have said 3/4 but I was in a rush and lumped dead and buried together. pretty good historical evidence for the Life and death of Jesus and for all my issues with taking the bible to literally (and I have a whole load more having read some of the Old Testament last night as research!!!) I used to be able to say the creed in good conscience.

You know... I'm almost disappointed. I was hoping for some amusingly clever theory/equation for Catholics being 2/3 Christian...

Also, interestingly enough... the Resurrection of Jesus was the main rational reason, in the book I mentioned above and which I forget the name of and no longer have access to. And not just how the Resurrection, if it happened, validated Christianity, but how the Resurrection is the most logical explanation for what actually happened to Jesus and the disciples.

I seem to be having an interesting day, making connections...

This life ain't so bad - and anyone able to surf the net isn't doing badly on the scheme of things. I have had some difficult thing happen as most people do if they live long enough, but I don't want to go in to that now or the reasons for my lapse - if you want to know PM me - but you appreciate it so much more if you think it is all you are going to get. I am so much happier now I no longer beat myself up for my failure to be perfect. I don't behave any less morally now than I did but I certainly seize the day more rather than banking on an afterlife to make up for the bad sides of this life. It would be lovely to believe I would be reunited after death with those I have loved and lost but I can't. Believing this life is all there is doen't have to turn you in to a selfish hedonist it can make you more compassionate and concerned with people's immediate needs rather than their eternal salvation - isn't the Christian Aid slogan "We believe in life before death"....

Well, it doesn't necessarily turn you into a hedonist- I quite agree (I don't think I intimated that I did... did I?). However, it seems like a terribly, terribly sad thought... Blame it on my being young, but I don't see a problem with living forever- especially in a perfect Heaven. I consider myself fully capable of amusing, entertaining, and occupying myself forever- especially with the good health, peaceful relations, and advanced mind and body that is part and parcel with being in Heaven.

For one thing, I want to create a fictional word with as much or more depth than Middle-Earth.

[Mithalwen]

I did read a book where a lawyer presented the evidence for the resurrection - he had set out to discount it and ended up converting himself......

I used to feel sad when I finally came to the conclusion that this was all there is but I did an astronomy course and all the particals that make us will return eventually to the stars whence they came ... so I am content with cosmic recycling

[davem]

Originally Posted by Alatar

The assumption is that God is absolutely Good, and so cannot fathom one degree of unGood? All of the Christian God's subjects/children are by definition ungood, yet exist. Maybe I'm just not seeing it.

That was Eckhart's theory. God has no 'evil' aspect, therefore cannot know evil - or even recognise its existence. This is because evil does not have a real existence, being (as Boethius stated) nothing. Evil is a 'void' hence God cannot be aware of it.

Eckhart believed that God was constantly creating (because He is a Creator in His essence) everything - even the past & future are being constantly created, not just the present is. Nothing can exist unless it is being constantly created. He also believed that we are judged on our intentions - hence, if you so all you can to feed the hungry then from God's POV you actually have fed all the hungry: ie, you fed as many as you could, & if it had been possible you would have fed them all therefore it was only limited resources (for which you cannot be held responsible) which prevented you from feeding them all. From that perspective Hitler would be judged to have killed all the Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, disabled simply because he did all he could to bring that about.

The point is, God cannot create evil, only good, therefore if someone had become completely evil He could not continue to create them as He would not even be aware that they needed to be created....

Hence, God cannot 'talk to the Devil' in Eckhart's view. The Devil,, having been cast from Heaven would not 'be'. I think you're referring to the Book of Job, which clearly was written as a cosmic drama. the problem with the Devil 'creating' Hell is that it ascribes the power of Creation to a being other than God. All the Devil could do was corrupt something pre-existing.

All of the Christian God's subjects/children are by definition ungood, yet exist. Maybe I'm just not seeing it.

No, they have some good in them - mainly in that they have been redeemed, but also, in Eckhart's view they must have some good in them otherwise they would not actually exist.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

Hence, God cannot 'talk to the Devil' in Eckhart's view. The Devil,, having been cast from Heaven would not 'be'. I think you're referring to the Book of Job, which clearly was written as a cosmic drama. the problem with the Devil 'creating' Hell is that it ascribes the power of Creation to a being other than God. All the Devil could do was corrupt something pre-existing.

I'm no theologian (I think we need a symbol that means the same thing, as in this thread and others we all've been starting with that caveat ), but do not Christians believe that there is a real Satan? Isn't that what lmp and I've been circling, the incarnation of the Fallen? So Eckhart can think whatever, but I am using an accepted interpretation of the Bible. My original comment, that Hell makes sense, was stated assuming that we are talking about a Christian world view that many hold.

[davem]

Originally Posted by alatar

I'm no theologian (I think we need a symbol that means the same thing, as in this thread and others we all've been starting with that caveat ), but do not Christians believe that there is a real Satan? Isn't that what lmp and I've been circling, the incarnation of the Fallen? So Eckhart can think whatever, but I am using an accepted interpretation of the Bible. My original comment, that Hell makes sense, was stated assuming that we are talking about a Christian world view that many hold.

Well, Eckhart's views were considered heretical.

I accept that some Christians believe there is a real Satan. Many don't. I don't think that makes them less Christian though my knowledge of Christianity is admittedly theoretical.

[Lalwendë]

Excuse my poor typing and rambling before I begin, I'm not very well.

I was a thoroughly conventional Protestant (C of E brand) until I read Tolkien and started exploring some of the wonderful stories and ideas that I had heard more deeply, especially exploring what those who came before me believed, and what those who were in other parts of our world believed.

I'm not that way nowadays, but nor am I a fully paid up Atheist. I can't remeber who said that Atheism was a 'broad, breezy highway' - might have been Russell? But anyway, I didn't find it to be so. Experience has shaped me.

I have experienced that moment of death, and I can say now that the one emotion I felt in that split second was utter disappointment. I can't forget that. It left me knowing that whatever happens, even if there is life after death, it's nothing like what we have been blessed with right now. This is our only chance for any kind of happiness in the way we see it now. Any other kind of happiness is unknowable. If there's a god, it wouldn't want us to waste that mad chance that we have been given to be alive - and the chance that we came to be is a chance in a million anyway.

But there is no way I can accept the concept of either Hell or the Devil as a place or a supernatural being. Hell is here now, it's being bullied, being robbed. The Devil is also something here, it's that thing which gets into people just like you or me which makes us tut at people in queues, shout at kids, etc. Or worse. Hell and the Devil are just us. God is in the best we can be, no matter what our religion is, or even if we don't have one. If there is god, then it will accept everyone no matter if they reject it. And I'm deliberately not saying He because that sticks in my throat - as a woman I find it ridiculous that god is He, especially as women are the ones who go thorugh all the pain to prodcue the human race.

That is one reason I reject any conventional form of religion, another is that it also exhorts me to reject science and I find theoretical physics to be truly transcendent. But the main one is why should I accept what other humans have written as the Truth?

I'm truly universalist (and I also deeply respect anyone who has a religion - I see the individual's religion as deeply personal and will only criticise it where it impinges on the good of other people) and I find that sense of the Universal in Tolkien's work more than anything else. I do find god in his work, a sense of limitless possibility and a sense of awe, but not one kind of god, one brand.

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

I used to feel sad when I finally came to the conclusion that this was all there is but I did an astronomy course and all the particals that make us will return eventually to the stars whence they came ... so I am content with cosmic recycling

And that's what gets me too. The concepts of physics amaze and astound me, the idea that we are in the second age of the five ages of the universe, that really we are indestructible... What's really depressing is when people are unwilling to consider all of that, either because they can't be bothered or are afraid of it. That to me is a really miserable existence. Godless even.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

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

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

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

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

That is one reason I reject any conventional form of religion, another is that it also exhorts me to reject science and I find theoretical physics to be truly transcendent. But the main one is why should I accept what other humans have written as the Truth?

Because God was the one who wrote it...

Ahem!

Anyway, the main reason I quoted/posted here was to say how terribly sad the relationship between Science and Religion has become. Prior to the 20th Century, and even ofttimes therein, the great scientists tended, by and large, to fairly devout people- typically Christians, if from the Western world. Newton, Galileo, Einstein- all believed in God (and according to an organised faith) and studied His creation out of a desire to understand the things He wrought (I simplify, somewhat...).

Religion, particularly Christianity, it is true, has always been somewhat reactionary. Since Science, of its very nature, is forward-looking, changing its appearance with the emergence of every new theory, it was natural the Religion and Science should collide, with Science tugging inexorably towards the future, while Religion moves more slowly, with a much greater trend towards keeping the valued things of the past.

The two are not natural enemies, though, and it is entirely possible to be both a progressive scientist and a devout -even a conservative- believer.

Alas that things appear otherwise these days...

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

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

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

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

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

[color=#800080]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[littlemanpoet]

I had a post up early yesterday but being on an unfamiliar computer at a certain conference I was attending, I was unsuccessful in posting it.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

...the Christian group (or just LMP, since he has comprised most of it, to date) has been a lot more willing to give and take, to say "you have a point".

I'm not saying that one group has been, or ought to be, accepting the other group as right. I'm not even saying the Christian group is right (although as a card-carrying member, I obviously feel that way). What I am saying is that the Christian group has thus far been more willing to say "you have a point" whereas the non-Christian group hasn't been willing to say that.

As noted, however, that is simply things as I am seeing them- on this thread. Possibly my vision is being coloured by the side of the fence that I'm on.

I think this last sentence is apt. I used to get on the defensive when such astute questions were put to me, but that has changed. I understand why I did get on the defensive: I was afraid that I wasn't up to defending the Faith, that I had to be the next C.S. Lewis in order to do what I felt needed doing. At the conference I attended I heard a lot of useful stuff, and here's one quote, from Marilynne Robinson of the Iowa Writers' Workshop at the U. of Iowa.:

Nothing true can be said about God in a posture of defense.

The reason is that defense is all about setting borders, confining oneself into a small area so as to protect oneself or one's beliefs. But God is bigger than our beliefs. God exceeds defense, proof, et cetera.

Originally Posted by Betberry

Well, this is a bit of a sticking point, I would think, as I doubt if there is general concensus about where it is literal, where symbolic, where metaphorical. I rather liked the explanation of the Catholic sense of letter and meaning (the article used the terms sign[ifier (sic)] and signified) in the article I referred to above.

Originally Posted by [i

THE GIFT OF ILÙVATAR: TOLKIEN'S THEOLOGICAL VISION[/i] by Damien Casey]Tolkien has a strong dislike of allegory with its one dimensional correspondence of sign and signified. [12] Tolkien's imagination is thoroughly Catholic in this regards. Whereas C.S. Lewis thought allegorically, Tolkien thought symbolically. The Catholic understanding of symbol is not simply something that stands for or points to something else. This is no more than a sign, or in its narrative form, an allegory. Rather, the symbol both points beyond itself and makes present that to which it points. It is the nature of sacrament and symbol to bear within themselves the objects to which they refer. Hence Tolkien's imaginary world hopes in some sense to bear the true world within itself.

I like this. However.... literal versus symbolic versus metaphorical. First off, symbolic seems to be an umbrella term under which metaphor finds itself, no? "Literal" would be the histories and stories, unless the text itself indicates a figurative reading such as the parables. If the Bible calls them histories, so I read them, even if many scholars disagree.

More later.

[davem]

If the Bible calls them histories, so I read them, even if many scholars disagree.

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

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

When you say 'I believe the histories contained in the Bible, no matter what the 'scholars' say.' & I ask for evidence its not because I want to belittle your faith, butbecause only evidence is safe. The Twin Towers fell, & thousands of people died because some people decided to 'believe' something they read. Six Million Jews died in the Holocaust because people made the choice to reject the 'scholars'. Belief is the single most dangerous approach to life.

Its an approach that seems the way of least resistance, 'let go, trust in a Higher power', don't worry about all these confusing 'facts'. Admit your ignorance & rest in the arms of God'. Sorry, but its a cop out, a denial of your intellectual responsibility - & that is ultimately a rejection of your moral responsibility.

And now I'm on the attack again.

Look, I'm not saying the cold, hard material world is all there is. I've had experiences which have confirmed to me that 'there are more things in Heaven & earth' than are included in the works of 'scholars' but I've never gone down the line of simply 'believing' anything. If the historical accounts in the Bible are true they can be proved (& it will be 'scholars' who prove them), if they can't be proved they are not true.

You've called yourself both a writer & a poet - if you are, & especially if you are a poet, you don't get the luxury of such a cop out.

Sorry for my harsh words, but they had to be said....

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

I cannot express my utter dread and horror at the idea of not having an afterlife. What POINT is there to life, if this short span -so easily ended in a car accident or a medical breakdown- is all we get.
Call me whatever you like... the very idea gives me the jibblies.
----------------------------------------
Saying that you are guided by reason, rather than faith, makes me laugh at the moment. I'm sorry- it's not the statement itself, but the context I find myself in when I read it. Blame it on a book I just read. Basically, it set about showing how RATIONAL a faith Christianity is, and it got my mind thinking quite a bit about lately about just how true that is.

Many times even the most learned have never quite thought their personal views to their end... I think we could rephrase your question: "What POINT is there to life, if this short span -so easily ended in a car accident or a medical breakdown- is only a small part of what we get?"

Do you see it Form? Isn't life's precariouisness just the thing that gives it meaning and depth? Why to care, if this is just an interlude or or an overture? Just play your cards wisely and wait for the next level (like in WW-game, flying under radar and hoping you wouldn't be noticed?).

And to the second point. The fideistic point (called forwards by Kierkegaard & co.) is quite new indeed - but widely held in protestant countries nowadays. They think, that you should make a difference between belief and knowledge. It's an old & new fundamentalist view to call the questions of faith epistemological ie. being questions of truth or falsity - things to be known, or reasoned / proved about... So when you call your belief rational, you line up with the fundamentalists - even though you say the contrary.

Already most of the medieval monks felt quite uneasy with those rational "proofs of God's existence" (brought forward from 11th. century forwards), as they seemed to tie God in logic and (human) reasoning... So there is this tension between rationality and christianity - has been there since Paul, of course, but it has not been done away with quite yet.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Bethberry

I want to make sure that my words aren't misunderstood. What I was referring to with the term "this POV" was this idea I presented of historically unfolding understanding. I was acknowledging a problem with the idea I presented, rather than suggesting anyone else's ideas were arrogant.

I get it. Thanks for the clarification.

Originally Posted by alatar

In the New Testament we have demonic possession and less, if any, children of the 'sons of God' (as in Genesis 6).

The questions then seem to be, (1) "Why did the fallen angels stop incarnating themselves some time after the Flood, but not as a result of it; and when?" And related: (2) "Why did the fallen angels choose demonic possession as their evil-de-jour?"

The questions seem linked. Maybe the fallen angels got smarter and began to realize that they could be much more effective as invisible, possessing agents, rather than as physical beings wielding physical power while trammeled to many (if not all) of the limitations thereof.

What's even a bit more confusing is that the Nephalim are considered "heroes of old," which to me seems to be placing them in a somewhat positive light.

That does seem to have a positive connotation, doesn't it? The problem is that we can only guess at who these "heroes of old" were by way of judging the appelation. My "tortuous" tendency is to link these to the demi-gods of various mythologies both known and unknown in our time.

If the fallen could produce hybrid offspring, then why not the unfallen doing the same to provide a counter?

I've thought about this. Could there have been a second Fall involving precisely this temptation? Fodder for a great feinged history, this would make! (I'm already working on it by the by) No proof for this, just speculation, but it does seem to be (absent the idea of it being a second Fall) what Tolkien posed as Melian's story.

Did Tolkien have this superbeing/human pairing because he too believed that Genesis 6 spoke of angels mating with humans?

At the conference I went to I picked up a book that talks about this very thing.

It seems to me that Tolkien has made more sense (mythologically speaking) of this mysterious passage in Genesis than anyone else. He discusses the "Children of God" at great length in numerous letters (Letters, pp. 146-47, 203-4, 284-86, etc.) and in The Silmarillion. Tolkien explains that Men and Elves are known as "Children of God" and that the Valar, who were also created beings but of far greater age and knowledge, loved and yearned after them. All of this fits the Genesis stories very well.

So says this writer. I personally had not felt this way, which is why I have been working on my own feigned history using a my own "tortuous" understanding of precisely the same passages. For any who cares to learn more about that, check out this post and this one too. Enough of that.

Originally Posted by alatar

My point was that if, as you state, that they are to be imprisoned or were imprisoned, then what is the need to drown them?

It seems harsh, but apparently the lines of seed had to be cut off so that they could not pollute the seed through Noah. However, this answer is weakened because of the Rephaim and Nephilim still extant in Canaan when the Hebrews crossed the Jordan. Weakened but not undone. God gave the Hebrews a Law they failed to keep more than they kept it, and God still achieved his purpose in spite of their disobedience; God's big enough to be able to overcome the obstacles of destructive seed. Then why drown the humans? I don't know. A 'fresh' start? It's more complicated than that, and God's purpose is fraught with mystery, so that's the best I can offer for now.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

God's big enough to be able to overcome the obstacles of destructive seed. Then why drown the humans? I don't know. A 'fresh' start? It's more complicated than that, and God's purpose is fraught with mystery, so that's the best I can offer for now.

This is one of the things that make me feel uneasy about different monotheistic religions- or any ideologies that claim having The One Truth. If that truth calls for "cleansing" of the earth, or "a fresh start" - or just death to the infidels, then it is a most dangerous ideology there is. I'm not against any faith as such. People do beautiful things inspired by faith, but then those faiths are also mighty tools in the hands of the wicked... You just think about these suicide-bombers etc.

Claiming something to be a mystery, then, I find deeply unnerving. It's always the hiding place of power and intrigue. Open arguments can be looked at, together, mysteries are only for the "chosen" (normally self-chosen).

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

This is one of the things that make me feel uneasy about different monotheistic religions- or any ideologies that claim having The One Truth. If that truth calls for "cleansing" of the earth, or "a fresh start" - or just death to the infidels, then it is a most dangerous ideology there is. I'm not against any faith as such. People do beautiful things inspired by faith, but then those faiths are also mighty tools in the hands of the wicked... You just think about these suicide-bombers etc.

Claiming something to be a mystery, then, I find deeply unnerving. It's always the hiding place of power and intrigue. Open arguments can be looked at, together, mysteries are only for the "chosen" (normally self-chosen).

Friday night I listened to Salman Rushdie at the conference I went to. He was a very good speaker; many writers are not. He's also a thoroughgoing atheist, self-described. One of the things he said was that 'religion is the cause of savagry and tyranny'. He also said that his initial reasons for rejecting theism were architectural and digestive; he was trying to be comical, but also honest. Anyway, I think that his points are well made, regarding religion, as far as they go. Religions, however, are not the catalysts of savagery and tyranny, but the vehicles. It is humans who are savage and tyrannical, be it in the name of a religion, a politico-economic system, the rebellion against one, or what have you. It's humans who do the evil, not the religions and other such excuses they try to hide behind. I do grant that religions do have within them material that allow for radicalist, reactionary applications. But it is still the humans who are putting these into practice. So the question for me always returns to this: What is it in humans that brings them to do such evil whilst equally capable of such glory as symphonies?