Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Leisure and Society
Hobbies, Interests & Entertainment
Science Fiction & Fantasy
"The Sad Truth Of Tolkien Spirituality"
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="jamiec" data-source="post: 76366946" data-attributes="member: 429609"><p>My long answer. Sorry.</p><p></p><p>LOTR is not an allegory. Tolkien says explicitly that it is not, and the detail of the book bears him out.</p><p></p><p>LOTR is a work of literature, not of propaganda or apologetics. The Iliad is a work of literature, not of propaganda or apologetics. People don’t read “Paradise Lost” in order to share Milton’s theology, or the Aeneid, in order to worship Rome, Augustus, Juppiter or Juno, but because these are both great poems, which enrich and enlarge the reader. I don’t read the Gilgamesh poem in order to believe in the deities of Ancient Iraq, but because it is a (very great &) humane & thought-provoking and ancient poem. There is nothing wrong or dodgy about reading Norse mythology, either.</p><p></p><p>“Occult elements” such as...? Having characters perform black magic, is not the same as advocating black magic. The Bible contains three mentions of incest, mentions of exterminations, and much more: does it follow that it is advocating incest, extermination, and other evils ? Of course not. And in LOTR, none of the nasty stuff is commanded by a god.</p><p></p><p>Theosophists do all sorts of things other people do: including eating, reading, drinking, sleeping, working, breathing; Are Christians to destroy themselves, lest by breathing they have something in common with Theosophists ?</p><p></p><p>His cosmology fits his story, and that is what matters. His myth is a work of imagination, not of Scripture. The absence of Elves, Orcs, Trolls, Ents, dragons, wargs, half-orcs, Easterlings, Southrons, Hobbits, Wizards, Valar and Bombadil from the Bible, does not mean that Tolkien did wrong by peopling his invented world with them. There is nothing remotely Gnostic about it. There is no Biblical command for people to fill their minds only with the Bible.</p><p></p><p>(1) Where does he claim his myths were inspired ? He claims in LOTR to be translator & editor of an ancient book in which the story of the Quest of the Ring is told. This is a literary device, to bridge the gap between him, & and the fictional ancient past in which the Quest is set.</p><p></p><p>(2) This is a literary device, which has nothing to do with re-incarnation.</p><p></p><p>Tolkien is no more to blame for the abuse of his book by nutty USAnians, than St John is to blame for the crazed interpretations some people have got from the Book of Revelation. Eccentrics & fanatics can spoil anything, regardless of its maker’s intentions. Perhaps no book has been more perverted by ignoramuses, fanatics & eccentrics than the Bible.</p><p></p><p>What syncretism ? He was a storyteller, with an imagunation enriched from many different sources. IOW, he was very well-read, and drew upon what he had read, and experienced in order to create his mythology. His knowledge of Old English, Old Norse, Finnish & Welsh, his experiences in WW1, his reading of Norse legends, of the Kalevala & of Beowulf, all find a place in LOTR. That is not “syncretism”; that is enriching & deepening & developing one’s story with one’s reading, memories, & experiences.</p><p></p><p>A quotation or two from Altena:</p><p></p><p>Most people are level-headed & sane enough to be able to tell the difference between a literary mythology, and a religion. That some people make a religion out of LOTR, Star Wars, Harry Potter, & probably other fictions, does not oblige anyone else to do so. There are many good lessons in LOTR - one can learn from Aragorn’s rejection of moral relativism, from Gandalf’s refusal of Frodo’s offer of the Ring, from the despair of Denethor, from the treachery and envy of Saruman, & from a hundred other things in LOTR, without treating this (very good) book as Scripture.</p><p></p><p>No, no, no, no. It is not meant to be taken “with a grain of salt”. It is a “really long story”, a “feigned history”. It is not mostly true history, with a few fictions in it: it is a myth, a fairytale. Its truth is moral, and metaphysical; not historical.</p><p></p><p>That a myth can be read as non-fiction, does not make that reading a correct one. A myth remains a myth, even if it is taken as history. Is King Kong to be taken as a documentary about how a giant ape attacked New York, on the ground that New York is a real location on the map ?</p><p></p><p>The last paragraph is headed: “Christians Unequally Yoked With Tolkien’s Spiritual Children”. Altena brings no evidence to show that his assertion is accurate.</p><p></p><p>The essay tries to condemn LOTR by association: New Agers like it a lot, & even make religions out of it - therefore, Christians are not to like it. The story itself, its action, course, motives, speeches, ideas, the virtues & vices of the characters, the characterisation, are all completely ignored.</p><p></p><p>LOTR is a work of great imaginative power, genius, & beauty. These are good gifts of God, so they attract people. It is extra-ordinarily vivid & immediate, and that too attracts people. In a world full of depraved and dehumanising ideas, it is a Godsent shaft of light that helps readers not to “darken their souls”, & to think instead of what is “good and true and beautiful”.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="jamiec, post: 76366946, member: 429609"] My long answer. Sorry. LOTR is not an allegory. Tolkien says explicitly that it is not, and the detail of the book bears him out. LOTR is a work of literature, not of propaganda or apologetics. The Iliad is a work of literature, not of propaganda or apologetics. People don’t read “Paradise Lost” in order to share Milton’s theology, or the Aeneid, in order to worship Rome, Augustus, Juppiter or Juno, but because these are both great poems, which enrich and enlarge the reader. I don’t read the Gilgamesh poem in order to believe in the deities of Ancient Iraq, but because it is a (very great &) humane & thought-provoking and ancient poem. There is nothing wrong or dodgy about reading Norse mythology, either. “Occult elements” such as...? Having characters perform black magic, is not the same as advocating black magic. The Bible contains three mentions of incest, mentions of exterminations, and much more: does it follow that it is advocating incest, extermination, and other evils ? Of course not. And in LOTR, none of the nasty stuff is commanded by a god. Theosophists do all sorts of things other people do: including eating, reading, drinking, sleeping, working, breathing; Are Christians to destroy themselves, lest by breathing they have something in common with Theosophists ? His cosmology fits his story, and that is what matters. His myth is a work of imagination, not of Scripture. The absence of Elves, Orcs, Trolls, Ents, dragons, wargs, half-orcs, Easterlings, Southrons, Hobbits, Wizards, Valar and Bombadil from the Bible, does not mean that Tolkien did wrong by peopling his invented world with them. There is nothing remotely Gnostic about it. There is no Biblical command for people to fill their minds only with the Bible. (1) Where does he claim his myths were inspired ? He claims in LOTR to be translator & editor of an ancient book in which the story of the Quest of the Ring is told. This is a literary device, to bridge the gap between him, & and the fictional ancient past in which the Quest is set. (2) This is a literary device, which has nothing to do with re-incarnation. Tolkien is no more to blame for the abuse of his book by nutty USAnians, than St John is to blame for the crazed interpretations some people have got from the Book of Revelation. Eccentrics & fanatics can spoil anything, regardless of its maker’s intentions. Perhaps no book has been more perverted by ignoramuses, fanatics & eccentrics than the Bible. What syncretism ? He was a storyteller, with an imagunation enriched from many different sources. IOW, he was very well-read, and drew upon what he had read, and experienced in order to create his mythology. His knowledge of Old English, Old Norse, Finnish & Welsh, his experiences in WW1, his reading of Norse legends, of the Kalevala & of Beowulf, all find a place in LOTR. That is not “syncretism”; that is enriching & deepening & developing one’s story with one’s reading, memories, & experiences. A quotation or two from Altena: Most people are level-headed & sane enough to be able to tell the difference between a literary mythology, and a religion. That some people make a religion out of LOTR, Star Wars, Harry Potter, & probably other fictions, does not oblige anyone else to do so. There are many good lessons in LOTR - one can learn from Aragorn’s rejection of moral relativism, from Gandalf’s refusal of Frodo’s offer of the Ring, from the despair of Denethor, from the treachery and envy of Saruman, & from a hundred other things in LOTR, without treating this (very good) book as Scripture. No, no, no, no. It is not meant to be taken “with a grain of salt”. It is a “really long story”, a “feigned history”. It is not mostly true history, with a few fictions in it: it is a myth, a fairytale. Its truth is moral, and metaphysical; not historical. That a myth can be read as non-fiction, does not make that reading a correct one. A myth remains a myth, even if it is taken as history. Is King Kong to be taken as a documentary about how a giant ape attacked New York, on the ground that New York is a real location on the map ? The last paragraph is headed: “Christians Unequally Yoked With Tolkien’s Spiritual Children”. Altena brings no evidence to show that his assertion is accurate. The essay tries to condemn LOTR by association: New Agers like it a lot, & even make religions out of it - therefore, Christians are not to like it. The story itself, its action, course, motives, speeches, ideas, the virtues & vices of the characters, the characterisation, are all completely ignored. LOTR is a work of great imaginative power, genius, & beauty. These are good gifts of God, so they attract people. It is extra-ordinarily vivid & immediate, and that too attracts people. In a world full of depraved and dehumanising ideas, it is a Godsent shaft of light that helps readers not to “darken their souls”, & to think instead of what is “good and true and beautiful”. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Leisure and Society
Hobbies, Interests & Entertainment
Science Fiction & Fantasy
"The Sad Truth Of Tolkien Spirituality"
Top
Bottom