I have been seeing a few posts, which support the possibility that the universe of Tolkien might be polytheistic. I can see how one can hold this view. Before I read the Silmarillion again I also believed that to be true (from certain perspectives depending on one’s relationship with Eru).
However I now think that Tolkien's universe is NOT polytheistic at all. It is monotheistic whichever perspective you choose to assume.
For the purpose of comparison
Lets take a look at a polytheistic religion; the one that is most familiar to us would be Hinduism. In the most popular version as practiced today, Hinduism has three primary gods; Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva; creator, maintainer and destroyer respectively. They are three separate and distinct rational entities with sperate consciousness. These entities agreed on a common purpose and established the cycle of the universe. I agree that there are many various interpretations of the religion and they are all correct but that is not the point of this post and lets not start a theological discussion on Hinduism; it will be never ending.
Of Eru and the Ainur
Now in Tolkien’s world there is Eru (Illùvatar): the singular consciousness that created the Ainur[1] who are simply the servants who carry out his intentions. Tolkien uses a wonderful metaphor, establishing Eru as the composer and the Ainur as musicians in an orchestra.
The Ainur have a degree of freedom[2] that is almost equivalent to freedom that Men have. They are beings in their own right and they have will that is separate to Eru (to a certain extent). However their very existence is to complete the purpose of Eru. Thus the Ainur are not Gods.
Even from the perspective of Elves and Men and the lesser beings of Eä[3] the Ainur should not be seen as Gods, but rather as angels with incomprehensible yet limited powers. Tolkien stresses:
Elves and Men are children of Illùvatar; and since they [the Ainur] understand not fully the theme by which the children entered the Music; none of the Ainur dared to add anything to their fashion. For which reason the Valar are to these kindred rather their elders and their chieftains than their masters. - The Silmarillion; “In the Beginning of Days’.
Of the Enemy
So what about Melkor? Didn’t he go against the wishes of Eru, doesn’t that make him a separate God?
For those of you who aren’t familiar with the Silmarillion, Melkor is the most powerful of all the Ainur. In time before Arda; Melkor became impatient with the Void and wished to create things for himself. So when all the other Ainur were singing the music of Eru, Melkor began to create his own music to add to that of Eru. This was the discordant music that gave rise to all the strife that will occur in the world.
This at first seems like free will. It seems that Eru has given Melkor a completely separate consciousness to his own. But it was all an illusion as Eru finally reveals:
“And thou, Melkor shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempted this shall prove mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined.” – The Silmarillion; “Ainulindalë”.
Even though Melkor thought that he was doing what he wanted, he was in fact completing the will of Eru and his actions become part of Eru’s greater glory.
In conclusion
We can see that there is really only one consciousness in Tolkien’s universe. This single entity controls all others at one level or other. The purpose of their existence is to carry out the purpose of Eru. Here is the final clincher:
“And thou, Melkor[4], wilt discover all the secret thought of thy mind and will perceive that they are but a part of a whole and tributary to its glory” – Ainulindalë
End notes
[1] The Valar and Maiar are those of the Ainur who came down to Arda; the Earth
[2] Matrix fans; think back to Negative and Positive Freedoms.
[3] “Eä is the material universe” – The Silmarillion; ‘Index of Names’. This is actually not the entire universe as there is also Void. The Ainulindalë begins with the sentence “in the beginning there was Eru” so it is clear that Eru existed before the Void. Or they may have existed simultaneously. I think this Void simply represents vacuum; an absence of matter and energy. It is probably a contradiction in terms to say, “the Void existed”.
There is also mention of the Imperishable Flame. If anyone has any light to shed on this please do so. I have guessed that this is probably similar to Lucas’s the Force, a source of energy to all life. It may well be a part of Eru himself.
[4] Melkor here represents all those who believe that it is possible to go against the will of Eru. If Eru creates the universe and there is a purpose to this and we are all part of his great plan, how is it that we have free will? Anything we do is all part of his greater glory. The choice is really an illusion. And the reason for this is elusive (it is not a test) as Eru has not yet revealed what his purpose is, even to the Ainur.
And another note to Matrix fans; Trying to go against the system only to finally realise that he is in fact working for it; who does Melkor remind you of? Scary huh?
Disclaimer
This really isn’t a comment on any religion. It is an observation of Tolkien’s universe and an attempt to rectify a common misinterpretation. God forbid, but if this turns into a theological discussion… 
Plus another thanks to Nate-skate who makes me think about such things with his insightful posts and also to Athene for making this quote which was a catalyst in my head; “ So Tolkien's world is both mono-theistic and poly-theistic, depending on the relationship of the individual to the 'god'. ”
MC:We're both part of the same hypocrisy, senator, but never think it applies to my family.
|
|
|
Well-written, Consigliere. 
However, I'm fairly sure that Melkor and Manwë were equal in power - it's just that Melkor seemed more powerful because he took advantage and made full use of his abilities.
If you couldn't find any weirdness, maybe we'll just have to make some!
|
|
|
You are right in that Melkor and Manwe are "bretheren in thought", and i took that to mean; they both understand equally the purpose of Eru. However "to Melkor among the Ainur had been given the greates gifts of power and knowledge, and he has a share in the gifts of all his brethren".
MC:We're both part of the same hypocrisy, senator, but never think it applies to my family.
|
|
|
Interesting - I've not heard that perspective before. I'll have to think about it for a bit.
If you couldn't find any weirdness, maybe we'll just have to make some!
|
|
|
The first quote "bretheren in thought" should actually be "bretheren in the throught of Illùvatar". Sorry about that, my memory is pretty bad (at the tender age of 19  ). No idea what it means. This could mean that they are equal in power but the second quote, which i made sure is correct, would contradict that assumption.
But you are not alone in holding this view. The writers of The Encyclopeadia of Arda claim that "Melkor was of the same order of the Valar and equal in power to Manwë himself" in http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/m/melkor.html. But I dont know where they source this from.
MC:We're both part of the same hypocrisy, senator, but never think it applies to my family.
|
|
|
Congratulations on a brilliant post... just when I thought it wasn't gonna happen anymore!
I too see Tolkiens universe as essentially monotheistic, with Eru, the Creator and All-father as God. The Ainur are merely physical manifestations of aspects of his all-encompassing will... and yes, that includes Melkor's evil, which indeed forms an inherent part of Eru's grand vision.
I personally love theological discussions, but I have noticed that on this board it is very difficult, if not impossible, to avoid treading on people's toes. Shame.
Begone foul dwimmerlaik, lord of carrion!
|
|
|
Yes, that post was the most comprehensible description of Eru and the Ainur all wrapped into one theme that I've seen yet!
You can always talk to me about anything Wajz, including religion, I am more afraid of stepping on your toes!
"O calm, dishonourable, vile submission!"
|
|
|
My toes can take quite a stepping-on, Lace! But maybe it is I who should trade in my heavy steel-nosed boots for velvet slippers when going into religious debates...
Begone foul dwimmerlaik, lord of carrion!
|
|
|
Now, now Wajz, You know it isn't religion that get toes stepped on on these boards. It's political discussions that require the steel-toed shoes!
Actually, I don't think I have ever seen a religious discussion go south here. We all seem to be pretty understanding on that issue. Are we cool or what?
Live from Mike Binkley's Anxiety Closet!
|
|
|
Political issues do not only require steel-nosed boots but teflon jockstraps as well!!!
Hmmm... I recall an evolution <---> creation debate that totally went pear-shaped. But maybe that was a scientific debate and not a religious one!
Begone foul dwimmerlaik, lord of carrion!
|
|
|
Made my day :)
I also like theological discussion but i think we should take that up in the Bakshi boards. Its very easy to be misinterpreted here, i guess.
However if someone else was to start a conversation on theology then i would not be able to resist the temptation to engage.
This is what happens to me and Nate-skate :) Even posts on how we shouldnt have theological discussion turns into... u guessed it.
Anyways thanks for compliment.
MC:We're both part of the same hypocrisy, senator, but never think it applies to my family.
|
|
|
 by -
Broc
(Fri Oct 17 08:55:28)
|
|
 UPDATED Fri Oct 17 08:57:37 |
Ah, Wajz -- Your observation about the difficulty of comtemplating Tolkien's intent re: theology on the board... How true! How frustrating!
And, as ConS clearly and concisely points out, we would be better served searching for Tolkien's intent rather than private Twists to accommodate our own preferences.
Good thread, my friends!
~ Broc
As Shakesaid Speare in the Verchant of Menace -- "All that Golders is Not Glit!"
|
|
|
Perhaps Tolkien in his wisdom described the concepts of the Supreme Being and other beings "as part of the plan" in fantastic unfamiliar metaphorical terms with the express purpose of avoiding the emotionally loaded concept of God and monotheism and polytheism that we get bogged down in. Perhaps he was even trying for a synthesis of the concepts - that in some ultimate way, they are really not incompatible!
Trust The Master to have already anticipated what you are reaching for!
"O calm, dishonourable, vile submission!"
|
|
|
A very well expressed post, Consigliere. I would agree on the monotheistic nature of Tolkien's universe, but I'm not sure that this is actually in dispute.
If I remember the other posters correctly, the point made was that the universe presented by Tolkien was in some form a bridge between polytheistic and monotheistic representations. The reason for saying this was that Eru played a role of minimum intervention after the Valar took up their role in Arda, and that the role played by the Valar, from the perspective of Elves and Men, was akin to that depicted in polytheistic religions (for example, that of the Romans and Greeks). Followers of polytheistic would therefore find something with which to identify within the story. This seems at least partly understandable given Tolkien's drawing of inspiration of earlier myths and legends which had polytheistic roots.
In truth I'm just playing devil's advocate a bit and hoping for further contributions from those with opposing viewpoints, as I incline towards your interpretation.
"Go Bokke!"
|
|
|
"I would agree on the monotheistic nature of Tolkien's universe, but I'm not sure that this is actually in dispute."
Have a look at BB's post below. He brings up some excellent points for a polytheistic interpretation.
Is Greek mythology really polytheistic? Do the Gods come to an agreement about the important matters of the universe or is there one entity that makes, maintains, and destroys everything? I know this is not Zeus because there is already a pre-existing universe when he was born. Is this the same with Roman mythology? Is Jupiter the initial consciousness? I am not really familiar with mythology and any light on the matter will be very much appreciated.
Thanks for the reply veethree
MC:We're both part of the same hypocrisy, senator, but never think it applies to my family.
|
|
|
Yes, there are some excellent points in this discussion. I hope this thread goes a long way.
It's been many years since I studied the creation myths of ancient Greece and Rome, so I'm sure that there are others who will be able to offer more insight. However, I do recall that their accounts of creation were definitely polytheistic in nature by the definition you offer elsewhere. These links may help to clarify:
http://www.geocities.com/hestia624/creation.html
http://www.hellenism.net/eng/creation.htm
Lots of infighting and definite clashes of very distinct wills! I would suggest that the interplay of these characters goes beyond even the point made by BB concerning the possibility of an entity being a god and yet playing a subservient role.
"Go Bokke!"
|
|
|
Those sites are amazing. Dammit i am gonna fail more exams. Thanks.
MC:We're both part of the same hypocrisy, senator, but never think it applies to my family.
|
|
|
The difference that I see, and again, I haven't brushed up on any of this, between Greek polytheism and Hindu types of polytheism is that in Greek mythology, there is no unifying cosmic consciousness, or place of enlightenment. In Hinduism, a person can elevate themselves through tapping in and becoming enlightened.
Do Hindu Gods compete with each other? Or do they sort of hang out together? I'm not sure. I do have Hindu friends I can ask.
Greek Mythology does not give humans a level playing ground. Their gods have all of the advantages.
In Hinduism, people are in essence "gods" or potential gods once they are enlightened.
In Greek Mythology, you go to a kind of depressing place when you die, and you have to pay a tax to get there. "They buried people with coins on their eyes". Remember George Harrison's song "Taxman". "My advice for those who die...coins on your eyes"
|
|
|
I wasn't previously even registered to imdb, until this message board woke up thoughts and a question. After reading all the threads since i had nothing better to do at 6am i felt the need to ask you guys:
I myself do not have the need of making comparison on the "Tolkien world" and the real one... So do you study this matter with a goal of learning more about Tolkien as a person or what??
Since when i read Tolkien's Middle Earth books I enter a fantasy world where things are not like in the real world... and i would find it disturbing to compare it with real world for numerous reasons.
Those reasons will perhaps be revealed in some future post.
- sometimes thinking...
|
|
|
| by -
CTS-1
(Sun Oct 19 21:37:48)
|
|
| UPDATED Sun Oct 19 21:38:03 |
I think the question is better phrased as: "what is Tolkien trying to tell us about the real world through the example of his fantasy world?" Anyway, that is my humble opinion.
Look- it's trying to think!
|
|
|
Well after all, the rules of Tolkien's world differ from the real one. And i don't mean the religious part.
I as a person who "believes" in evolution theory have no trouble accepting it as a great adventure in different world, and as reading thinking by the rules of that world.
But is it ment to be a joyride or has Tolkien hidden some cool data bits there for us to to find? After somewhat 30 years of seeking people could find something?
- sometimes thinking...
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Sun Oct 19 22:00:34)
|
|
I believe in evolution too. I don't see how that impacts Tolkien's works.
Yes, there are plenty of "cool data bits there for us to find". It's not just a joyride.
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Sun Oct 19 21:53:21)
|
|
Good question. I think it's a logical conclusion to the examination of Tolkien's works. We can spend a great deal of time examining Tolkien's universe, but eventually, it comes back around to comparisons with our own, particularly since Tolkien intended it as a pre-history of our world, and based it on various early mythologies. More than that, he tried to infuse it with ideals and symbolism common to our world, so it seems perfectly reasonable to try to understand these.
I think we always try to relate things to our own lives or our heritage.
|
|
|
"I myself do not have the need of making comparison on the "Tolkien world" and the real one... So do you study this matter with a goal of learning more about Tolkien as a person or what??"
Some people here are curious about the different interpretations that are possible. This is a very commendable and ambitious task.
My aim is humbler; I simply want to find out what Tolkien intended or what Tolkien meant. Just to see what makes him tick.
This has opened up many revelations in it self. I used to think that although Tolkien was great at the details he may have been a bit old fashioned and backward in his concepts, values and attitudes to society. But as I reread the Silmarillion, discuss his works with the members of this board and take a took at the letters that he has written I see a mind that is more than extraordinarily aware, and far ahead of his times.
So it is simply a question of application and allegory. One is what are the responders’ interpretations and the other is what is Tolkien’s intentions.
MC:We're both part of the same hypocrisy, senator, but never think it applies to my family.
|
|
|
| by -
BB-15
(Sun Oct 19 23:50:07)
|
|
Hi bleistar; You said;
" I myself do not have the need of making comparison on the "Tolkien world" and the real one... So do you study this matter with a goal of learning more about Tolkien as a person or what??"
1. There are many disciplines of study which involve learning about myth and from that study learning about our world.
* Jungian psychology; This idea is that there are universal concepts called archetypes, illustrated by myth, which reside in our subconscious which can tell us about human nature.
* Direct study of myths; Joseph Campbell is famous for studying world myths and from that coming up with commonalties in human stories.
* Religious studies; This involves looking at living religious traditions and comparing them to the mythical traditions from around the world.
* Philosophy of myth and religion; Philosophers have examined the philosophies underlying religious traditions from Plato, Shankara & the Vendanta, Zen, Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Calvin.
* Cultural Anthropology; This ambitious field of study attempts to learn about every culture's mythical tradition and come to conclusions about similarities and influences.
* World History; which includes the study of myth.
2. Why study Tolkien's myth? To name just a few reasons;
* Tolkien's myth is the largest in the English language and just as a body of literature it is of interest to those who study fiction. How big is large? Over 20 books.
* On top of that it draws from the myths of Northern European culture and because of this, we learn not only about Northern European traditions but also tease out the universal aspects and learn more about what is universal in myth.
* Tolkien was a brilliant scholar who wrote essays and many letters about creating a proper myth. This examines the basis of what humans like in their most timeless stories.
* Tolkien's myth has incredible background detail in terms of geography, and languages, leading to study by people from those disciplines.
* Tolkien creates several distinct races and cultures with an interplay of those races and cultures over thousands of years of time. Such a commentary is useful (though sometimes contentious) in examining race and culture.
* Tolkien's stories also have timeless and modern themes in them about; good and evil; mechanical industry and nature; genetic manipulation and natural processes; totalitarianism and freedom.
* There is also a tension in the stories about; human weaknesses of greed and power; the nature of evil; monarchy vs. reward due to ability and actions; Western aesthetics of beauty vs. world aesthetics; the evolution of the use of English.
3. What does this have to do with the movies?
Since this is a movie message Board, I think I need to also address this. If you have ever seen FOTR Extended Edition and listened to the commentary by the writers and the director, and have seen the documentary about Tolkien; you would learn that many of the issues I have mentioned were on the minds of the film makers and that this affected how the films were written and made.
Have a good one, BB ;-)
it's just in my humble opinion - IMHO - 
|
|
|
I love this thread. But it's a bit intimidating. I almost want to do a roll call to find out how many Ph.Ds are at the table. Movers and Shakers one and all!
It's not uncommon to find someone who has knowledge in a particular field, but not so many well rounded and knowledgeable in everything from sociology, anthropology, psychology, theology and metaphysics.
Does anyone else feel the least bit intimidated, knowing there are twenty people reading your post like a doctoral thesis, and just waiting to point out your mistakes?
By the way, I'm not a Ph.D, I'm just trying to keep my head above water here.
|
|
|
| by -
BB-15
(Fri Oct 17 00:40:25)
|
|
Hi Consigliere; Your premise is well written. A subject this complex however can be interpreted in many ways.
1.
"Lets take a look at a polytheistic religion; the one that is most familiar to us would be Hinduism."
Fine, I can look at Hinduism and there are many who interpret it as a monotheistic religion.
http://www.sivanandadlshq.org/discourse/may2002.htm
2.
" However their very existence is to complete the purpose of Eru. Thus the Ainur are not Gods."
A minor god's purpose in a polytheistic religion may only exist to fulfil the purpose of a greater god. Completely subordinate gods; such as the night, the sun, the seasons; are still gods. A god may be a direct servant to a greater god, a messenger or an assistant.
The Valar which are patterned after these types of gods have similar powers, freedoms and sometimes similar subordinate roles to some ancient mythical gods.
3.
" the Ainur should not be seen as Gods, but rather as angels with incomprehensible yet limited powers."
The term angel is very vague when being applied to the Valar. Angels in Judaism do not have the all encompassing responsibility of building and overseeing a world. This is the function of deities in the ancient myths which Tolkien was influenced by.
4. I agree with you that the role of Melkor does not establish him as a god no more than Manwe, Varda or Aule are gods.
TO SUM IT UP; So, IMHO, athene's statement still stands, that depending upon one's point of view, " Tolkien's world is both mono-theistic and poly-theistic".
Have a good one, BB ;-)
it's just in my humble opinion - IMHO -
|
|
|
The second point you raised is very valid and I will get to it. But we'll go through it in order.
Quotes from your (BB) post are in blue and quotes from my original post are in green. And I will go on the assumption that you agree with my reasoning on point 4 and how Melkor's actions are actually part of Eru's plan.
1. "I can look at Hinduism and there are many who interpret it as a monotheistic religion."
As i said in my previous post "I agree that there are many various interpretations of the religion and they are all correct but that is not the point of this post and lets not start a theological discussion on Hinduism; it will be never ending. " This is not essential to our argument. I just wanted a polytheistic religion as a reference. I used to be a Hindu and i realise that there are many millions of ways to interpret Hinduism. At its most essential/minimal interpretation Hinduism does not even require a God. Belief in the cycle of the universe that is without beginning or end is enough. But i chose the polytheistic form for its value as a comparative 'test subject'. I also do not see how Hinduism being monotheistic adds to the argument that Tolkien's universe is polytheistic.
2. A minor god's purpose in a polytheistic religion may only exist to fulfil the purpose of a greater god. Completely subordinate gods; such as the night, the sun, the seasons; are still gods. A god may be a direct servant to a greater god, a messenger or an assistant.
The problem with your definition of God is that when is one not a God? Sauron has great power but would you consider him God?
If you define God as someone who carries out the plan Eru then every being in the universe is a God. Even though Melkor thought that he was doing what he wanted, he was in fact completing the will of Eru and his actions become part of Eru’s greater glory. Do you agree that this applies not only to Melkor but to all the creatures of the universe?
I think a more valid definition would be that God is a being that has a completely independent consciousness to that of Eru. They have the ability to do things against the will and purpose of the ‘great plan’. None of the Ainur can do this as I have illustrated.
I am not very familiar with Greek mythology but it was my understanding, after watching Xena Warrior Princess, that the twelve immortals of Olympus each had separate consciousness from that of Zeus. And Zeus himself wasn’t the creator of the universe. He was only the youngest of the Titans. So I am not sure if the Greek religion was monotheistic or polytheistic.
I think there is room for argument with this particular point. There may be a definition that should fit a polytheistic interpretation but I would like to see what other posters think before I get into that.
3. The term angel is very vague when being applied to the Valar.
Yes I agree that I probably should not have used the word angel. But again this error in terminology does not detract from my argument.
To Sum up; I am still mulling over your second point, which the more I think about the more sense it makes. I would really like some information on the creation of the universe as portrayed by Greek mythology. Any experts out there?
Thanks again for another thought provoking post BB.
MC:We're both part of the same hypocrisy, senator, but never think it applies to my family.
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Fri Oct 17 09:11:56)
|
|
I also do not see how Hinduism being monotheistic adds to the argument that Tolkien's universe is polytheistic.
The relevance here is that Hinduism can be seen as monotheistic or polytheistic, just like Tolkien's universe. It depends on how you look at it.
The Abrahamic religions evolved out of and/or were affected by previous polytheistic religions/mythologies. I believe that Tolkien tried to portray this by portraying the Ainur as angel-like in some respects while showing characteristics of ancient mythological pantheons. It is a fusion of various mythologies and monotheism. It is consistent with both, and contradicts neither because it can be seen either way.
Tolkien said that the world's mythologies and religions contain common elements. This commonality was what he was attempting to portray. It seems that he succeeded, since a case can be made for various interpretations.
|
|
|
#1. "The relevance here is that Hinduism can be seen as monotheistic or polytheistic, just like Tolkien's universe. It depends on how you look at it."
I do see your (and BB’s) point on Hinduism. I haven’t read the Vedas themselves; only secondary sources on how they are interpreted. It is my understanding that the reason for all these separate interpretations of the Hindu philosophy is because of the ambiguous nature in which Creation is outlined. In fact the Vedas are actually a collection of hymns and stories that was composed around 1500BC, and their primary purpose is not to explain the creation of the universe but to set out moral codes of conduct.
Also the philosophy has evolved in such a way that the Vedas, though considered sacred is not followed to its every word and does not completely encapsulate the religion as it stands now. I have not met a single Hindu who has actually read them.
In studying Tolkien’s universe we of course have the advantage of referring back to the Ainulindalë and the Valaquenta (they are both in my edition of The Silmarillion). As I quoted in the original thread, Tolkien states that there is only one will and all other wills are subservient, whether or not they think they are. This is not open to interpretation.
The confusion arises because of the resemblance in the physical nature of the Ainur to the pantheons of Greek. But they are not the same. The Olympians all had a will of their own that was separate and distinct from each other and their purpose sometimes went against the purpose of the each other. The primary creator is not outlined in the Greek mythology. There is no substitute for Eru. Manwë is not Zeus. Zeus has a will of his own. Manwë doesn’t.
#2. "The Abrahamic religions evolved out of and/or were affected by previous polytheistic religions/mythologies. I believe that Tolkien tried to portray this by portraying the Ainur as angel-like in some respects while showing characteristics of ancient mythological pantheons."
I am not familiar with how the Abrahamic religions evolved. Which polytheistic mythologies are you referring to?
MC:We're both part of the same hypocrisy, senator, but never think it applies to my family.
|
|
|
Hinduism is difficult to trace. With Abrahamic religions, you are basically referring to people who have received divine revelation at various points. God spoke to Abraham/Noah/Moses...etc. And therefore you can trace its origins.
This is why monotheistic religions differ. They see "divine" revelation as a mandate. If God spoke directly, and God is the highest moral authority, then his laws have great weight.
Hinduism is more of a culmination of cultures that does pre-date Christianity. Whether or not it pre-dates monotheistic views of God is debatable, for archeaology is uncovering evidence that monotheism is much older than they once thought and did pre-date history (the floods)
There are some famous figures, but no Moses figure. Hinduism is more a collection of philosophies of various cultures that came together. There was no "Hindu Bible" so to speak.
There is no statement of Orthodox beliefs so to speak. Therefore you have an extremely wide array of practices in Hinduism. Some are primarily Monotheistic in practice, but that doesn't mean they are monotheistic in belief. They choose to worship one primary god.
The Vedas are the Hindu equivalent of scripture. However, they differ in how they were compiled, and in tone, from monotheistic scriptures. These were compiled somewhere between 1500-400 B.C
Hindu and most pantheistic religions differ greatly from Judeo/Christianity in several areas.
1)The nature of God.
2)The nature of rewards/punishments
3)The means of salvation vs nirvana.
Actually, I think I'll stop here, because I really don't know if you find this interesting or not.
|
|
|
I for one am interested! One thing I have found interesting about Hinduism is the idea that all natural things have spirits (animism) was not deemed incompatible with Buddhism. In fact, the eastern religions and philosophies have all seemed less conflicted with each other than in the West. Buddhism was also not incompatible with Chinese Taoism, or Chinese Confucianism, or Japanese Shinto. But the element of conflict in the West subverted old Pagan religions and even philosophy from Pagan times had to be rigidly controlled by the Church. Was that a strange combination of the legalism of Rome and the exclusivity of the Hebrews?
"O calm, dishonourable, vile submission!"
|
|
|
Buddhism is essentially what Martin Luther was to the Catholic Church. He was not bringing a new religion, but reforming an already existing religion. In essence, he believed in most of the basics of Hinduism, except for the cast system.
Nothing is really incompatible to Hinduism per se, because Hinduism doesn't speak in as many moral absolutes.
There are a number of reasons for Hindus/Buddhists being less incompatible with others. 1) There are many voices in hinduism. There are three cheif gods: I believe it's Vishnu, Shiva, and the third??? Brahma??? The three primary gods are not "one" and have distinct identities and purposes. Creator? Destroyer? And???
But here is why you see a small "g". The concept of god is nebulus. You might say that the three gods are actually coming out of the cosmic consciousness/energy field???
And it's stated very well in star wars. The force is very compatible with hindu concepts. A force created from the energy of all living things.
This is in step contrast to a God who creates all living things.
There are actually millions of gods, and multiple sects. Some are animists. Some are fairly close to monotheists, and it goes pretty far from there.
So, when Luke tries to tap into the force, and direct the force, in essense, he is a god. So Luke can use the force for good. And Darth Vador can use the same force for evil. Well, that's pretty compatible.
So, there is less of a view of a being who is dictating moral law to you. You are more empowered to do whatever you want to do, as opposed to serving God.
Salvation: Essentially you just keep working your way to Nirvana, which is sort of like connecting to the force on an eternal basis. Otherwise, you have to keep being born into this world in various forms to work off your debts.
Kharma is the law of sowing and reaping based upon your works. So you pretty much get to try over and over to get it right. And the downside to that is knowing what to do with your current state in life.If your life is screwed up now, it is assumed that you might be paying for past sins. And therefore there can be moral confusion. Should I fight against my current state in life? Or should I stay in my current state because I am paying my debt?
The Abrahamic religions all believe in punishment and reward. But not reincarnation. You are judged for your life when you die. They all believe in eternal life. And also eternal punishment, depending on your choices in life.
Christianity differs somewhat in the fact that it implies that no one ever is good enough to work their way to heaven, and that we all require mercy, and that God sent someone to die in the place of others. So it is different than most religous views that you have to pay for what you do.
In Hinduism, sin is not really that defined. And so, there are vague laws. Some are dietary. Some are based upon your treatment of other people. Perhaps religous observances.
In Judaism, you are talking about very distinct laws of Moses. And in fact, they have very detailed books telling how to correctly perform all of the laws. And in Islam there are also similar laws. There are large differences in Jewish laws and Islamic.
Christianity is harder to define, because the law isn't looked at in the same way as Jews look at the Mosaic Law. And many will say there are basically two laws, love God and others as yourself. But there are debates over just what that means and how it is applied.
|
|
|
Hey Nate, glad you found this thread!
"Kharma is the law of sowing and reaping based upon your works."
Yep but I think in Hinduism it is a bit more universal than that. It is pretty much the law of cause and effect. Not only does it apply to human actions but also all the irrational and rational beings of the universe.
"You might say that the three gods are actually coming out of the cosmic consciousness/energy field???" Yes. According to one of the polytheistic interpretations. However there is also the Monotheistic interpretation that Aule and BB mentioned that says that Lord Shiva dances the cosmic dance and everything alignes itself to the rythm of this dance. This is why he is called Nataraja or Lord of the Dance. There is a famous symbol for this: [ur;]http://www.geocities.com/RodeoDrive/1415/nataraja.html[/url]
But debating the finer points of Hinduism is a never ending affair, and it may not be conducive to the main point of the thread , which is to see whether a polytheistic interpretation is possible. However it is fun so I really dont want to stop talking about this.
Have a good one.
MC:We're both part of the same hypocrisy, senator, but never think it applies to my family.
|
|
|
I have multiple Hindu friends, and I'm doing what you are doing in reverse, picking their brains to see their view of life. They are lovely people. So I find it interesting when you share what Hindus believe.
At best, I have an out of focus view of many religions.
And I think it's never negative to want to learn, and understand. Obviously, coming to an agreement is different.
But if people value people, they can see past their differences.
The people on this thread are not in the majority. I've found that most people of most religions do not know their own scriptures. They can't even explain the basic tenants of their faith. And they approach things primarily from a social perspective, and not one of faith in their God or religous system.
That's why I appreciate people who go on spiritual quests and look around to try to understand. Now they may end up back where they started, but now with a rich faith rather than a presumptive faith, "Well I don't know why I do this? I do it in case there is a god. And I don't want him to get angry at me. But I don't really believe in it." So, their religion is mostly a good luck charm. They carry it around in hopes that it works.
|
|
|
The people on this thread are not in the majority. I've found that most people of most religions do not know their own scriptures. They can't even explain the basic tenants of their faith. And they approach things primarily from a social perspective, and not one of faith in their God or religous system.
You are SO right about that!
"O calm, dishonourable, vile submission!"
|
|
|
Creator, Maintainer and Destroyer. This is a ploytheistic interpretation of Hinduism.
MC:We're both part of the same hypocrisy, senator, but never think it applies to my family.
|
|
|
Very interesting, Nate-Skate.
"The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step."
|
|
|
The pre-classical Greeks had multiple stories related to earliest creation - even Heracles was sometimes identified with early creation. One story was that the original blind cosmic serpent Ophion searched through the void and searching found nothing so the serpent curled about a space and from that space came the original cosmic egg out of which came a bird and where the bird flew there appeared the sun and moon and stars and the Earth (Gaia) and the Sky (Uranus). The titans were the original divine beings, born from the union of Earth and Sky. Cronos (Time) was the youngest and his union with the Titaness Rhea brought forth the Gods. Zeus (the father) was the youngest of these.
The point is that unlike Eru, Zeus was not the original God but was several generations removed. To the Greeks, there was no divine plan. In fact creation was a series of deviations and rebellions from what was before.
There is actually a lot in common with Genesis as far as the sequence of creation, however in Genesis, God always was singly in control and ultimately responsible. However it is interesting that like the Greeks, there was rebellion and that rebellion (by Satan and by Man) led to civilization. However to the Greeks, the instigator (Prometheus) was the friend of man, and to the Hebrews, Satan is identified as the Evil One. Interesting, huh?!
"O calm, dishonourable, vile submission!"
|
|
|
Yes its extremely interesting. Thanks for the information. I hope someone will bring some arguments about the nature of Satan in Christianity.
I would like to say again that I used to be Hindu and that is the religion that I am most familiar with. Chrisianity is still a little alien to me even though I live in a predominanlty Christian society.
But here is my question. Is Satan's rebellion, according to Christianity, the same as Melkor's rebellion? Melkor's rebellion was part of Eru's plan. Is this the same with Satan? Because if it isnt then that would add an interesting dimension to Athene's post. and her definition of polytheistic gods.
MC:We're both part of the same hypocrisy, senator, but never think it applies to my family.
|
|
|
| by -
Nate-skate
(Fri Oct 17 20:16:38)
|
|
| UPDATED Fri Oct 17 20:19:59 |
In order to attempt to answer your question, it is almost impossible to go around a far more difficult question, which is really too big for this board.
But here is a general thumbnail of one particular view of Christianity. There are more than one view.
1)Design. God designed beings with a specific purpose in mind. Angels were created for one thing, and men for another. They did not have the same purpose. And men don't turn into angels when they die. They are given a different type of immortal body.
2)All beings have free will. God did not want any robots in his universe. And all beings are tested. This includes all "higher" beings. So, therefore, all beings had to have the possibility of moral failure, including angels and men. God wants what is natural for us to want, and that is to be loved by choice. And therefore, God had to risk being rejected by the very beings he created. This explains why temptation existed in an otherwise perfect world.
3)Did God determine beforehand that certain beings would fail? And here is the big difference in two schools of thought. Some people say yes, God planned it to happen. But the other school of thought is this. God didn't choose it to happen. However, God permitted it to happen. And since God has "foreknowledge" of all things, he also had made plans before the world existed to counter what would happen.
According to this second view, God made the spiritual realm, and gave angels a test. And 1/3 of the angels failed the test. But God wasn't caught unaware, due to his ability to see things before they happen. He knew what Satan/Lucifer would do with his free choice before he did it. And God planned around that accordingly.
4) God had a specific design for mankind. But they had to be tested as well. Did God make them fail, or did God foreknow that they would fail? It is very clear that he foreknew what would happen. And again, depending on a persons perspective, God had a contingingency plan in place knowing that man would fail, because God's original intention was to create man for a purpose, and he never gave up on his purpose.
Satan's rebellion was this. He was the most beautiful of the angels. And he grew proud and declared that he would ascend above the throne of God. (Boasting, "I will be like the Most High God!" And there was a war in heaven. Not between God and the devil, but between the 2/3 angels that didn't rebel and the 1/3 that did rebel. And after the war, Satan was cast down to the earth (not hell). What happened to the other 1/3. Evidently many were thrown into chains.
Why did he hate humans? Because they were freely given what he tried to steal. He wanted to be like God. Men were created in the image and likeness of God.
And so there are parallels with Melkors rebellion. There are parallels to the Valars desire to prepare the way for the Children of Eru. And parallels with his desire to corrupt the races, and twist them into his own evil image.
|
|
|
You sound like a very knowledgeable person. In fact, there are so many knowledgeable people on this thread.
I read Greek and Roman mythology before I read any other religous writings. Well, actually I also read my brothers books which were pretty way out.
And I think I went in this order? Atheism, hindu-eastern, Islamic, Jewish Christian, in terms of trying to figure out what was what and eventually what I should believe.
So, in general, I am familiar with the basics of the most common religous views. I had my share of theology, but I pretty much got sick of it. Not because I wasn't interested in seeking truth, or finding out about God, but mostly because they were better at clouding and confusing issues rather than clarifying them.
Honestly, I was more interested in finding out if anyone today had mystical, and spiritual experiences, and if so, what? It just seemed illogical to me that if there were a god/God, that he would never show himself. And if he did show himself, I figured it must be worth exploring. And I also believed that if God could do miracles thousands of years ago then he sould be able to do them now. Otherwise, how can I be sure that he could do them then either?
I think being an atheist first (not raised in a religious family) helped me to at least try to be objective.
|
|
|
This message has been deleted by the poster
|
|
|
| by -
lacedemonians
(Fri Oct 17 22:12:46)
|
|
| UPDATED Sat Oct 18 03:18:59 |
My parents were not terribly religious and did not force us into anything, but we had Bibles, Catholic literature for young people, and stories and history from medieval and ancient times. I also got a set of "The books of knowledge" for young people circa 1929. These were designed to give young people an introduction to a classical education. It's too bad they are no longer in print. I know they greatly positively influenced my thinking about Western Civilization.
I flirted with Atheism when I was in my teens but I quickly realized its vapidity. It asserts metaphysical Truth without any kind of investigation or basis. What I liked about Christianity was though it has a central mystery (God’s grace for sin) it also has a long tradition of rational discourse and commentary – inherited from the Greeks and Hebrews. Many struggling with belief disagree with each other and form multiple denominations but I feel this diversity only helps strengthen Christianity.
Christianity is heavily integrated in thousands of years of the development of Western civilization - history, literature, and art. Jesus’ message of “love thy neighbor as thyself” and the Hebrew ethic of equality before God had a huge influence on the West – helping to evolve the concept that the King was subject to moral law, mercy for the poor, the (eventual) staged abolishment of slavery, the notion of the natural rights of man. The evidence of the strong spiritual belief that must have charged medieval people can be seen in the rich Western canon and the amazing cathedrals engineered with primitive technology.
In one sense, I see God as an approach to ultimate questions and ultimate reality. Why do we exist? What is existence? Why the heck should we be here at all? The fact that we are here and there is so much "stuff" (i.e. complexity in the universe) seems fantastic. If there is no God, why should there be complexity or especially just the right combinations of forces and physics and material to make it possible for us to be typing to each other?
In another sense, every now and then I see what I can I can only describe as the hand of God, such as experiencing the amazing beauty of nature, the sometimes goodness of strangers, the way history works out at critical times. It was fortuitous that when Stalin and Hitler and Tojo were poised to take over the world and they had the entire old world on the ropes that the allies were able to hold out and the U.S. was able to gear to war production and together they were able to prevail. As bad as WWII was, it helped end colonialism, and ultimately communism ended too. Why? Because as Victor Hugo would say - they weren't compatible with what is right or true. I also think it is no coincidence that the civil rights leaders Ghandi and Martin Luther King were religious men – their faith made them able to accomplish what must have seemed impossible - but they accomplished their goals by their dedication to moral means and a belief in a cause whose moral power was greater than the powers arrayed against them. Similarly, there must be some spiritual force that charges Mother Theresa and the many other people, Christian or not, who dedicate themselves to service to others.
It was an amazing time when at the height of the Cold War, Apollo went to the moon and the astronaut quoted Genesis - it demonstrated that Man is greater than just his petty conflicts and struggles of the moment. There is something great and sublime and important about Man.
"O calm, dishonourable, vile submission!"
|
|
|
When I was young, I was not so fortunate. I didn't even know who my mother was until I was about five or six. And at two or three they left us with caregivers who didn't allow us to move from a seat at a table, and they'd lock me and my brother in a closet all day if we did move. Well, in other words, we didn't visit Disneyland.
And there were enough traumatic experiences that I went through, actually my sibblings went through, that when my fifth grade science teacher preached about Atheism, I ended up buying into it. And thus I coined the phrase, "Protest Atheist" which I use to describe someone who is angry at perceived injustices.
And honestly, my life was hard, at least in portions. I had gangs in my neighborhood which said they wanted to kill me. And I remember being chased down the railroad tracks by gang members with weapons and such. I feared going to the bus stop to go to school, and just ended up not going.
To me life was unfair, and I had a very hard time reconciling things. But here's the dynamics of such things, I was faced with my mortality. When people pull knives on you, you have to think about "what if?"
And yet, I didn't want to believe in fairy tales, or resort to a "spiritual crutch".
But then I went through this phase where things would happen, and I'd see the beauty of sunsets, and such. And 8th grade genetics caused me to see a code in DNA that was ingenious and not some random blobs mutating and dividing. So it was a pretty arrogant science teacher who turned me to atheism, and science that began to cause me to question my atheism.
I do have a pretty interesting life story, but I didn't get any religous indoctrination. And so I assumed that if I was going to find truth, it wasn't going to be in Christianity, because I lived in an area where there was a lot of religous people who seemed anything but spiritual. They seemed greedy and their spiritual views didn't seem to have any impact upon the way they lived.
Therefore I tried everything else first. Not really tried? I remained an atheist until perhaps my sophomore year in H.S, when something incredible happened. And that's for another story.
|
|
|
Wow Nate-skate, that's a lot you had to deal with.
I like your term "protest atheism" - that very much captures that anger that is so easy to fester and then direct toward the world or life or God. I can identify with some of what you are saying. I guess that brings up the essential ultimate question - if God exists and is just and all-powerful then why does so much crap happen to innocent people? Is one of the assumed aforementioned assumptions about God not true? Are the standard answers of "free will", "original sin", and "the fallen world" satisfactory?
One little aside. I know it can appear that I'm lauding the U.S. all the time - especially for its role in WWII - implying that the U.S. was part of God's grand design. What I was trying to say sometimes it appears that there is a fortuitous hand of God in the grand events of the history of the world. Others have said the exact same thing. For example, I have read Victor Hugo saying that Napoleon was defeated in part because the 19th century could not make progress with him in power (even though Hugo had a great deal of pride and admiration towards Napoleon).
"O calm, dishonourable, vile submission!"
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Sat Oct 18 08:38:02)
|
|
The confusion arises because of the resemblance in the physical nature of the Ainur to the pantheons of Greek. But they are not the same. The Olympians all had a will of their own that was separate and distinct from each other and their purpose sometimes went against the purpose of the each other. The primary creator is not outlined in the Greek mythology. There is no substitute for Eru. Manwë is not Zeus. Zeus has a will of his own. Manwë doesn’t.
Actually, I would say that Tolkien's pantheon resembles the various Nordic mythologies most, but as Tolkien said, mythologies from around the world tend to share common elements. This is what he was specifically trying to portray.
In any case, there doesn't need to be direct correlation between any single mythology and Tolkien's. He drew upon many. The point is that the Valar did have characteristics that are central to the pantheons of these mythologies. The Valar each have dominion over different things, just as the Norse or Finnish, or Greek gods do.
Manwe is much like Odin, or perhaps Ukko, from the Finnish myths, for example, but not exactly like either. He rules the air and avian creatures. Ulmo's dominion is the seas, in a similar fashion to Ahto or Poseidon. The Valar actually created that which they have dominion over. That was their task. Of course, in Tolkien's world, only Illuvator could create life. I think the real difference is that they were in large part obedient to Illuvator.
Just because there is a single Creator to which the Valar defer, does not mean that they can't be considered gods. They are the Powers of Arda. They do have a will of their own and they did lend their voices to the music of the Ainur. Manwe did make decisions, and he sometimes consulted Illuvator. Aule created the dwarves against the will of Illuvator. Melkor's discord was not a part of Illuvator's will, but Illuvator countered Melkor's discord with the second music. They certainly weren't puppets.
I am not familiar with how the Abrahamic religions evolved. Which polytheistic mythologies are you referring to?
Many stories in the Old Testament can easily be attributed to older writings in Sumerian/Babylonian mythology. The account of creation in Genesis is very similar in wording and style to that described in the Enuma Elish. The story of Noah's Ark is extraordinarily similar to the story of Utnapishtum in the Gilgamesh Epic. The difference in these stories is that there are multiple gods.
|
|
|
I have a general idea of the Greek mythology and a more substantial knowledge of the Indian ones but I am regretfully ignorant of those that you have mentioned (Nordic and Sumerian/Babylonian). I am curious to know what was the relationship these ‘Gods’ had with the primary creator. The key to our argument lies in this relationship.
I think I have already established in a couple of my other posts that we cannot define gods by their powers or abilities. Right now I am too sleepy to get into it so I’ll just put up a link to the post:
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0167261/board/thread/3758331?d=3770063#3770063
This was in reply to an excellent post by Athene, which I think you would find very interesting.
Just because there is a single Creator to which the Valar defer, does not mean that they can't be considered gods. They are the Powers of Arda. They do have a will of their own and they did lend their voices to the music of the Ainur. …They certainly weren't puppets.
For now I have to just agree to disagree, but I promise I will bring a more satisfactory argument tomorrow.
Sorry about the lack of depth in this reply but I have spent all day revising for a finance exam and that’s a major boring head-f*ck. Thanks for your patience.
MC:We're both part of the same hypocrisy, senator, but never think it applies to my family.
|
|
|
There are common threads in most ancient polytheistic cultures.
Their gods were like superpowered men. In some ways they were like superheros. They were not omnicient or omnipresent. They were not all knowing or all powerful. They did not have unlimited powers.
It was like a powerful dysfunctional family. And they tended to be super one trick ponies. For instance, Neptune...god of the sea...Thor...god of thunder???
Zeus was not a creator, but he was somewhat like a powerful elected cheif of the gods. Other gods could form alliances and go behind their backs.
So, in polytheistic cultures, there are clashes as to who is more powerful, who controls what...etc. There are powerplays. And they breed with humans from time to time.
In monotheistic cultures, you will find that many view angels similar to "gods" with a small "g" because they have limited powers, and they have free will. However, you have basically two camps. Only fallen angels rebel against God's plans. They other angels always work in complete harmony with God, and never draw attention to themselves.
In fact angels can appear in human form and other forms. They can appear as angels of light (powerful and beautiful) or in the form of men, women or children. Or they can appear ugly and hideous.
|
|
|
Zeus was identified as "The Father" and though he wasn't responsible for all of creation - He did sometimes create life, such as molding the form of the first woman, Pandora and either He or Athena breathed life into her. The other Olympian Gods also gave Pandora attributes, Aphrodite gave her beauty and charm, Athena gave her skill at handicrafts, and of course Hermes made her clever and curious and a little bit wayward. To the Greeks, Creation was a series of events without guidance from a particular divinity. Sometimes creation even happened spontaneously such as when Aphrodite (love) stepped out of the sea foam of the blood of Cronos (primal murder); or when Zeus had a great headache, Hephaestus smote his head with a hammer, and Athena (wisdom, battle lore, and handicrafts) stepped fully armored out of her father's imagination (without a mother); or the story of Perseus, when he slew the gorgon, Medusa, the winged horse Pegasus flew out from her blood. Other times, life was fashioned by the whim of a God - Poseidon was supposed to have formed many of the curious creatures under the sea. He created the horse (a perfect form of animal – the zebra, donkey, etc. were rejects) as a present to please a woman. To this day, women love horses!
There is even a story about Heracles, that as a baby, Hera was tricked into offering him her breast. But when she realized that she was nursing Heracles, she withdrew in anger and Heracles spewed out the milk creating a river of stars - The Milky Way. Thus, Heracles is sometimes linked back to earliest creation.
"O calm, dishonourable, vile submission!"
|
|
|
It's been many years since I read mythology. This thread is like taking a course.
Yes, the gods had limited powers. Zeus was not the creator, in fact he had parents. Wasn't one of them Terah (the earth) or something along those lines? I'm pretty rusty, but I still recall the basics of the mythological world.
I even compared the gods of the various cultures, what they had in common and where they differed, because some basic characters seemed to appear in other cultures under different names.
I was particularly fascinated with thor, and can remember walking around the yard at a young age throwing my hammer around. Well, we didn't even have nintendo!
I loved mythology, and it was also around the time I discovered fantasy lit, such as the Sword in the Stone. Up until then, I never liked to read at all.
Over time, some things fade, so you really have to keep up on it, or you forget the details.
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Sat Oct 18 17:53:29)
|
|
I don't think we're really disagreeing all that much. I too think Tolkien intended it to be a monotheistic world. However, I think that he represented the polytheistic mythologies quite well. It is a fine line. What separates angels from gods? Tolkien walked right down the middle, while staying consistent with the concept of Christianity.
But we can view it all as non-theistic, since there were no forms of worship, altars, etc. These beings simply existed, and the people of Middle Earth knew it. There's no faith involved, or any kind of speculation.
|
|
|
Actually, I kind of like the people on this thread. I've enjoyed Consigliere and his meaningful conversations for awhile now. I knew some of you at least a little, But I wasn't really sure a conversation like this was possible.
Everyone stays pretty cool, and they talk about meaningful things without getting heated. That's rather refreshing for me. Too many people are afraid to take the risk of listening to anything that might be challenging or controversial.
Honestly, I applaud the maturity of the board members or should I say thread members! You guys are great, and I'll look forward to seeing other threads that you are doing on other issues.
|
|
|
Nate, check your pms, please.
"The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step."
|
|
|
I think that it is possible to always look at reality from two points of view. There is the view of the Wholeness of Creation, or Behold the Mind of God view, and then there is the Work in Progress or Behold the Thought of God in Action view. They are both expressions of the same Creation, but perceived from different states of awareness within that creation.
But we can view it all as non-theistic, since there were no forms of worship, altars, etc. These beings simply existed, and the people of Middle Earth knew it. There's no faith involved, or any kind of speculation
I think the inherent assumption of my conclusion is that we are looking at the universe as external beings. This is why I prefer to use the name Eru instead of Ilùvatar, which is an Elven name for the One.
Another way to look at it would be looking at it through the eyes of the individual beings within that universe. For example we can look at how a Human from Gondor sees creation from his own religious standpoint.
Athene distinguishes these very well:”the view of the Wholeness of Creation, or Behold the Mind of God view, and then there is the Work in Progress or Behold the Thought of God in Action view.”
I also agree that many different interpretations can be allowed if we are looking at it from the Work in Progress. But for this discussion I would like to limit to the Wholeness of Creation perspective.
I was under the impression (don’t ask me how I got this impression) that you yourself were arguing that a polytheistic interpretation was possible from the Wholeness of Creation perspective. Unfortunately with so many concepts to think about one forgets to take into consideration the simple things such as what the other friggin person is saying. I must sincerely apologise for this.
Also there remains a point that I had failed to address in my previous post:
Just because there is a single Creator to which the Valar defer, does not mean that they can't be considered gods. … They certainly weren't puppets.
Please take a look at my third Dual Liberties post for a response of sorts: http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0167261/board/thread/3758331?d=3787934#3787934
Thanks for your patience.
MC:We're both part of the same hypocrisy, senator, but never think it applies to my family.
|
|
|
Actually the question broadens to "What is a god?" And I think that gets confusing to some people. What's the cut off line?
When you speak of a being with the power to Create with a word, that is one thing.
When you speak of a being who can do tricks, and has a long life, that is quite another.
What defines a "god"? And since we don't have a common definition, it might help to discuss what sets something apart in that way?
Should lesser created beings be worshiped? That is one standard that differs from religion to religion and culture to culture. And for that reason alone, some people see only the Creator as worthy of worship. In fact it is built into the primary codes/laws of some religions. While others tend to worship any being that has perceived influence, even on a small level. And some worship inanimate things because they are perceived to benefit people (Sun, moon, rivers, trees...etc)
That is why some people call Maiar or Valar angels, and others call them gods. Two interpretations of the same beings.
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Sun Oct 19 03:58:03)
|
|
Well said.
|
|
|
Should lesser-created beings be worshiped? That is one standard that differs from religion to religion and culture to culture. And for that reason alone, some people see only the Creator as worthy of worship. In fact it is built into the primary codes/laws of some religions. While others tend to worship any being that has perceived influence, even on a small level. And some worship inanimate things because they are perceived to benefit people (Sun, moon, rivers, trees...etc)
Some have accused Catholics of worshipping lesser beings than God - the Rosary prayer to Mary for example. Then there are the patron saints, the angels with various personalities, holy icons, and the trinity itself!
Though Jesus was sometimes identified with Apollo, and the protective nurturing mother quality of Mary was identified with Demeter or even Artemis - I believe that this is simply a way to have a more familiar vestige of divinity/special protection when it was needed! But Catholics still gave their special reverence to God himself.
As a nun once said: "Mary was assumed - Jesus ascended."
"O calm, dishonourable, vile submission!"
|
|
|
| by -
veethree
(Tue Oct 21 03:21:43)
|
|
| UPDATED Tue Oct 21 04:06:49 |
I don't have the Sil to hand, but weren't there references to altars in Numenor? If so, to whom were these dedicated?
I'll check later and update this post if I'm right.
EDIT: I came across this while checking on the 'net:
The Mittalmar was raised above the promontories (not reckoning the height of their mountains and hills); it was a region of grasslands and low downs, and few trees grew there. Near to the centre of the Mittalmar stood the tall mountain called Meneltarma, Pillar of the Heavens, sacred to the worship of Eru Ilúvatar. Though the lower slopes of the mountain were gentle and grass-covered, it grew ever steeper, and towards the summit it could not be scaled; but a winding spiral road was made upon it, beginning at its foot upon the south, and ending below the lip of the summit upon the north. For the summit was somewhat flattened and depressed, and could contain a great multitude; but it remained untouched by hands throughout the history of Númenor. No building, no raised altar, not even a pile of undressed stones, ever stood there; and no other likeness of a temple did the Numenóreans possess in all the days of their grace, until the coming of Sauron. There no tool or weapon had ever been borne; and there none might speak any word, save the King only. Thrice only in each year the King spoke, offering prayer for the coming year at the Erukyermë in the first days of spring, praise of Eru Ilúvatar at the Erulaitalë in midsummer, and thanksgiving to him at the Eruhantalë at the end of autumn. At these times the King ascended the mountain on foot followed by a great concourse of the people, clad in white and garlanded, but silent. At other times the people were free to climb to the summit alone or in company; but it is said that the silence was so great that even a stranger ignorant of Númenor and all its history, if he were transported thither, would not have dared to speak aloud. No bird ever came there, save only eagles. If anyone approached the summit, at once three eagles would appear and alight upon three rocks near to the western edge; but at times of the Three Prayers they did not descend, remaining in the sky and hovering above the people. They were called the Witnesses of Manwë, and they were believed to be sent by him from Aman to keep watch upon the Holy Mountain and upon all the land.
I can't recall any other references in the Sil or LOTR to worship, but this one is interesting. And why should it be only men, and not elves, that have this practice - and only the Numenoreans, at that?
"Go Bokke!"
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Tue Oct 21 06:05:27)
|
|
Yes, it is rather conspicuous, isn't it?
|
|
|
It certainly is. An anomoly, perhaps?
"Go Bokke!"
|
|
|
| by -
CTS-1
(Tue Oct 21 07:43:27)
|
|
| UPDATED Tue Oct 21 07:45:32 |
There were altars, and temples, and worship, and even human sacrifices. They were, of course, worshipping Melkor, according to Sauron's plan. No doubt, the human sacrifices were a great way of disposing of opponents; extra points for being grisly and painful.
There is a reference in "Morgoth's Ring" to the very first humans being deceived in the same way, also presumably by Sauron (as it was by an entity which bears a lot of resemblence to Annatar; by the point, Morgoth had lost his ability to appear in fair form).
Also in "Morgoth's Ring," it is stated that all that Iluvatar asks of his children is "belief in him, and [hope] in him." No temples, no dogma, no sacrifices except to refrain from evil acts. Is Iluvatar unitarian?
Look- it's trying to think!
|
|
|
No doubt Abraham was influenced by the local polytheism - but primarily as the concrete example of what NOT to do. He left Ur for the desert in order to get away from old corrupt influences and worship the true one God with a pure heart.
"O calm, dishonourable, vile submission!"
|
|
|
We now live in really weird times. I was in college back in the seventies, and no one argued about religion. We talked about it, and it never seemed to lead to anger or name calling.
So you could bring up all of these deep topics, and people did not get offended. But now we have a very polarized world.
But we could bring up anything, and it would lead to a discussion rather than a fight. Honestly, why are people afraid to talk about the meaning of life anymore?
There are multiple schools of thought. 1) Abraham was a pantheist until he ran into someone who changed his mind. So, the question is this? Has God ever visited anyone and revealed himself to anyone?
2) Well if God supposedly revealed himself to people, how can we know they weren't hallucinating or lying? Why is this an important question, because obviously if there is a God, he has to know who he is and what is important to himself. He can't change from day to day, and therefore, everybody who says they received a revelation from God can't be right. God has to be superior to men. There is too much order in the world and to many beautiful things for this to be otherwise.Therefore God is not prone to multiple personality disorder or schizophrenia.
3) And so, we begin individual quests to sort through all of this stuff (if we care about it) and try to find out who is credible, vs who is not. And it is like an old game show "To Tell the Truth".
Line up all of these religous figures, and sort through who is telling the truth. WHo had a real revelation? Who really heard from God? Who made up stories which obviously can happen? Or who had a deceptive revelation (spirit other than God) or hallucination?
And here are tips? Any confirmations? Are the revelations consistent? Do they make sense? Does history support them? It's not like we have no clues. It's just a matter of sorting through them.
|
|
|
I think this board is great! I haven't seen any name-calling. Many people are very sensitive about their religious beliefs and I try to respect the ultimate beliefs of everyone but I have no problem discussing anything. I don't believe that faith suffers from rational inquiry. It should be possible to call all things into question but I still believe there are objective truths. I also believe that everyone else also believes that - even people who claim to be subjectivists (that there is no such thing as objective reality).
Abraham may very well have originally had pantheistic beliefs but the OT (Old Testament) is very clear that he made a covenant with God that was wholly different in character to the old ways of relating to nature gods. The OT is clear that God is a singular entity and that other gods were not to be worshipped in addition to Him. This is fundamental to Judeo/Christianity.
Now, whether or not everyone who believes in God or spiritual matters (essentially every culture on Earth) is in fact hallucinating or lying is another matter.
I actually am one who believes there is enough in common between the various religious tenets to be able to say they all approach certain truths from different directions. I still believe that monotheism and the notion of a transcendent God is qualitatively different than pantheism. I must also say that there is some evidence that even the Greeks had a concept of God as God and not just an unruly company of Olympians.
"O calm, dishonourable, vile submission!"
|
|
|
This is true. And I agree with you. I shared somewhere else that back when I was in college (seventies) we had spiritual/meaning of life discussions all of the time, and there was never name calling or mud slinging. People didn't feel "offended" at the thought of being challenged. And everyone walked away as friends at the end of the day.
It is sad to live in a society where people are constantly offended or watching out not to offend. Because you end up worried more about how you look to others than anything else.
Here is the basic theory behind monotheistic religions.
Men were created innocent, but neither good nor bad. Their choices would define them.
Left to their own vices, rather than excell, within several generations they reached a point where "Their thoughts were evil continuously...and violence filled the earth."
God mourned, because people stopped seeking him and were now so corrupt that that they were beyond change. So God wiped the slate clean and started over. But within less than a generation man was back to his old tricks and headed down the road to perdition.
So what was God to do? He couldn't leave them to their own devices. He had to interupt their self-destructive bent, or every several generations he would be forced to cleanse the earth over and over again.
So God picks a representative (Abraham). And people ask why? He had to start somewhere with someone. Abraham believes God, gives up everything to follow him, and God promises to create from him a people, "By whom all of the nations of the world would bless themselves"
So, God was looking for a person as a conduit of blessing for the world.
And from there, it expands, God intends to reveal himself further, and so says to Abraham, "I will bless your descendents". And again, the blessing goes to the child, "Through you...the nations would bless themselves".
And God expands the conduit. He passes this promise on to a nation, by the way, he tells them "You shall be a nation of priests" meaning that his intention was not to create a country club, but to make an entire nation of people who are to introduce people to God, and the ways of God.
Now you have these little bread crumb trails... This way leads to blessings...God doesn't want to judge the nations which have fallen under curses, and so he is trying to interfere with men's affairs to prevent that.
And then you see confusion. Where did the bread crumb trail go??? All three monotheistic religions believe in Abraham. All three at least claim to believe in Adam, Noah, Moses and Jesus. (Mohammed was born many years after Jesus!)
Now there are two major forks in the road, and this is where it is up to people who believe in a monotheistic God to look, "Who has the ball now???"
Christians technically believe in Judaism. They believe in all of the same Jewish scriptures and prophets. They differ in several ways. They don't see the Mosaic Law as an ends, but a means to an ends. They believe the Mosaic law was given to show men what was in their hearts, but not to purify men. And the animal sacrifices were a means of God revealing how horrible our sins were in his sight and to specify that he would not tolerate sin forever. So, they differ in how they see the function of the Law of Moses. But they do believe in the Law as a guide for moral behavior. "Thous shalt not commit adultery" is still in effect.
The second point that is a fork in the road for Christians is the identity and purpose of Messiah. Christians believe in a two fold Messiah. One who would die for the sins of the people based upon Isaiah 53, and other OT scriptures. And they also believe in what is called the Lion of Judah, a Jewish Messianic King who will come and rule the earth forever. Guess where folks? Jerusalem.
Now Jews believe differently in terms of the Law. They "Orthodox Jews" believe that Messiah will only come when Jews keep the whole law (Torah) and when Jews rebuild the Temple. (Which very much has to do with current events)
Oh, and lastly, Jews for the most part are separatist, in that they feel no need to convert the rest of the world. They just prefer the rest of the world treat them with respect and allow them to worship their God in the mannor they feel they should.
Christians on the other hand take the "Priestly People" thing differently. (Depending on denomination). They feel they have a mandate to share their views with the rest of the world, but not to convert the world. People always have free will. And Jesus was clear that his kingdom was not of this world. So there is no justification for the crusades and inquisitions. That was evil men with evil agendas manipulating ignorant people to spread "Their Own" kingdoms on earth.
Islam has a completely different view. They believe the actual fork in the road goes back thousands of years, and that the promise didn't go to Isaac, but to his half brother Ishmael. And they feel that Jews dropped the ball, and that Christians never had the ball.
So, they received entirely new revelations from Mohammed. In effect, they believe in most of the central figures of Judaism, and in Jesus. But their figures are not quite the same in the Koran as they are in the Bible. For instance, in the Koran (I've only read a little), Noah had another son who missed the boat, and Allah told Noah not to mourn this son because he was an infidel or something to that effect. So the character names are the same, but the words and deeds attributed to them differ greatly.
In other words, they do not believe the OT prophecy of a Jewish Messiah, born from the line of David, or at least not in the same way that Jews see him, or that Gentiles see him.
So, they believe in Jesus as a prophet, but not the Son of God. And they do not believe that God permitted Jesus (his prophet in their view) to die on the cross. And therefore they do not believe in atonement.
So in Islam, works are the means of justification and judgment. And they have a mandate, however it also differs from the Christian. They feel that eternity does not come until Islam is spread throughout the world. So they have a mandate to convert, but they also feel that you convert at the edge of a sword, and that conversion is not really optional. And they also believe that the kingdom is of this earth, and therefore, the idea is to spread Islam.
Now that I've sort of explained the basics of the monotheistic religions I have to say this. One, there are many sects within them who do not agree with all of these tenants as described. And secondly, I do not have a perfect understanding of any of these let alone all of these views, and these are only roughly my understanding of how these work. So, I assume that I may be corrected on many points. But the main thrust of this message is that people have a lot to sort through when they are trying to follow the ball. (Assuming you believe there is a ball!)
And for the record, I have many friends, of which are Jews, Hindus, Muslims and Christians. And we never fight. All of our discussions are very civil. And no one puts our own view above the value of the other. It is better to lose an argument than to lose a friend.
|
|
|
Just a little point.
They feel that eternity does not come until Islam is spread throughout the world. So they have a mandate to convert, but they also feel that you convert at the edge of a sword, and that conversion is not really optional. And they also believe that the kingdom is of this earth, and therefore, the idea is to spread Islam.
To the best of my knowledge, Muslims believe eternity is in Heaven, not earth. Islam does not force people to do anything, let alone convert. Conversion is made through knowledge. Many Christians and Jews have lived under Islamic empires in the past, with freedom of worship.
There is no terror in a bang, only in the anticipation of it.
|
|
|
| by -
lacedemonians
(Sat Oct 18 16:29:52)
|
|
| UPDATED Sat Oct 18 16:41:11 |
Through the 11th century, Islam had some humanitarian proponents and tenets. Saladin was known for his generosity to conquered enemies and in general early Islam was relatively tolerant towards the Christians and Jews in the lands it conquered (requiring special taxes). Later, as the conflict between East and West heated up, the Turks became rather unforgiving towards Christians and treated them rather badly. Also slavery was freely engaged in by both sides. But we should remember it wasn't all warfare and conflict between Christians and Moslems. There was quite a bit of trade and cultural interchange as well. Think of the Silk Road and Marco Polo. When the Mongols invaded, there was coordinated action between crusader and Moslem forces. Oftentimes there was even alliance between the Christian Greeks and the Seljuk Turks against other Christians (such as invading Serbs). The crusaders and Venetians and Normans and Slavs were at least as responsible for bringing down eastern Christianity (The Byzantines) as were the Turks. There was also cultural interchange and intermarriage during the long occupation of Spain by the Moors.
One little point though, the Moslems believe in predestination so they feel that Allah has a plan for them to conquer to whole world eventually anyway. Also both the Turks and Arabs generally treated their conquered nonbelievers as second-class citizens. A Moslem man had the right to take the lives of the nonbelievers and it wasn't a great big problem. There are several passages in the Koran justifying violence against the unbeliever.
"O calm, dishonourable, vile submission!"
|
|
|
I have Muslim friends, and so I have to say that this information is not based upon my experience with Muslims.
If you take Jews, Christians, Muslims, they can get along. And they have had times of relative peace. But rather than go into what particular basis I have for the point I was trying to make, it's really not worth belaboring.
This is just a friendly discussion about basic concepts, and I'll leave deeper discussions for theologians and religous web sites.
|
|
|
Great post overall; but you may have to be a little cautious here Nate: "They feel that eternity does not come until Islam is spread throughout the world. So they have a mandate to convert, but they also feel that you convert at the edge of a sword, and that conversion is not really optional." I know a quite a few muslims who follow the 5 pillars, but do not feel this way. Is that really in the Koran?
MC:We're both part of the same hypocrisy, senator, but never think it applies to my family.
|
|
|
Very interesting post. I am not as erudite on the Sil as I would like to be in this crowd, only reading through it once. But I do have to say that Tolkien use of music as a metamophor for creation results in one of the most beautufil creation stories I have ever read.
I tend to think alog the line of polytheistic, as after creation Eru steps back from the spotlight, much as Uranus & Gia and Nut & Geb do, and from there the stories focus on the Valar. But you have raised some interesting points vis a vis, the ultimate directive being from Eru. That is one aspect that is not in ancient pagan myths.
I'll have to think about this one a bit...when I'm awake!
Live from Mike Binkley's Anxiety Closet!
|
|
|
| by -
Nate-skate
(Fri Oct 17 10:58:08)
|
|
| UPDATED Fri Oct 17 15:54:42 |
Gee, this is interesting, I inspired a post that I didn't know existed???
For the record, I'm stating that I'm on the boards to talk about LOTR, not to discuss religion. But I also enjoy discussing anything and everything, and as long as it's not an argument, I enjoy it.
I'm going to look at this issue from a sideways perspective. I can't think like Tolkien. I can only think like me.
If you are going to write a story, and in general you are a person of strong religous convictions, you may not be writing a religous story at all. It can be a love story. It can be a murder mystery. It can be a complex fantasy. Or it can be non-fiction.
If you are going to write fantasy, you are creating a fictional universe. You may have a purpose to express your own faith, and you write like C.S Lewis. Or you may choose to not define your spiritual/religous views, and you write like Tolkien.
Some of you may or may not know that I began a story on the LOTR thread "Tales of Woodland Forrest". It is not a LOTR clone. It is a tip of the hat to LOTR and Tolkien, because I appreciate his gift to mankind.
I decided to turn people that I knew or met from the board into characters in the story. My story is not to "construct" or "preach" a religous view to people. It's like inviting someone for a cup of tea, a gift to people that I appreciate: A fantasy for fantasy lovers.
Now here's the dilema from an author's perspective. (Conscience) If I am not going to define my view of God to my audience, but a spiritual realm is part of the story, I am now in the midst of a balancing act.
The approach that you take depends a great deal upon your own particular values. If an author has a strong spiritual view and a defined view of God, it would be very difficult for him to create another God. Most monotheistic religions have a built in abhorance to the concept of making an idol or worshiping other gods. And so, you either mention very little about your God, or you resort ot "Cryptic Speak", which is to neither violate your conscience, nor to preach your religious views in the text of your story.
Some authors would have no problem creating a "god" out of thin air. And it could look and act like anything, but I don't think Tolkien would have felt comfortable doing that.
And therefore, the safest answer is to develop a cryptic spiritual world, with a cryptic description of God. And I alluded to this before. Iluvator is translated Sky Father (Unless my Tolkien reference is wrong) Sky=Heavens in ancient writings. Sky Father=Heavenly Father. And so Tolkien can be ambiguous, allowing the reader to read his or her own interpretation into the story. And at the same time, he can avoid violating his own faith.
So on one hand, Tolkien was walking a tightrope, probably neither constructing a god or preaching a religion. So in all likelihood Iluvatar is monotheistic. And in cryptic speech it is likely that you have Arch Angels, and subtypes of angelic beings. And from other conversations, I gather you have Elves representing unfallen beings, and Humans representing fallen beings.
Then again I don't know this. I'm only speaking what I suspect from other conversations that I've had regarding Tolkien.
|
|
|
An excellent post, ConS- and thanks for the quote. I've been enjoying reading everyone's interesting and well-informed posts.
I think that it is possible to always look at reality from two points of view. There is the view of the Wholeness of Creation, or Behold the Mind of God view, and then there is the Work in Progress or Behold the Thought of God in Action view. They are both expressions of the same Creation, but perceived from different states of awareness within that creation.
I think that Tolkien was deliberately avoiding the singularly monotheistic view, by creating the Valar, who in their role on Arda, did have the characteristics of gods, somewhat distant, non-involved gods, but not as distant as Iluvatar. In Tolkien's world, Iluvatar essentially created Arda and then allowed it go its course without his direct intervention. Clearly, though, the world needed guidance and thus, he allowed the Valar to function as its gods, those who would promulgate his Concept throughout Arda and keep it in tune with his grand scheme. From the point of view of Arda, or the Work in Progress view, the Valar were gods, and so Arda was polytheistic. Otherwise, we would have had a story about a God who ignored his creation.
From Iluvatar's point of view, all creation were thoughts in his mind, so- yes, of course, one could also say, it was a monotheistic, closed, system.
Functionally, it was polytheistic, though. The beings who acted upon Arda and wielded god-like power were in all ways gods, although they were gods who were servants of a greater God. I think the difference has been made clear by Tolkien, as he allows only Iluvatar to have the Creative power, whereas the Valar can use, and manipulate that which he has created. This is similar to the situation of the ancient Greek gods who were somewhat limited in their creative abilities but had great power over that which already existed. The Greeks had a sense of a cosmos and creative power beyond the physical world and their gods. They did have the concept of Logos or the thought underlying the physical structure of the universe, which could be similar to Iluvator's music.
Nearly all polytheistic religions have an ultimate creator or creative force, an elemental force which exists in a plane different from the gods. This is why I think neither view is right or wrong, merely descriptive of the universe. I interpreted Tolkien's universe as an metaphor of great subtlety for his understanding of the deceptive nature of reality.
"I sang of leaves, of leaves of gold, and leaves of gold there grew..."
|
|
|
I can't say whether or not Tolkien wanted an in between type of religion or not. But I can say that there is a way to look at the same picture from a monotheistic Judeo/Christian and even Islamic perspective.
God created beings with free will, and to each being is "Delegated" (not of yourself) authority rather than intrinsic (coming from themselves).
Arch Angels have delegated authority, including Lucifer. They fought a war, and continue to fight. So they have "powers" and can be viewed as having godlike abilities, and this is not inconsistent with O.T (Old Testament) stories. One angel slew 60,000 soldiers in a day.
And likewise, God delegated authority to men (prophets and apostles) who did miracles. For those who are not familiar, people were raised from the dead in the O.T. A prophet walked on water. And they called fire down from heaven...etc. An O.T prophet healed a leper. So, having "godlike" abilities was not a symbol that a person was a god, rather that authority was given to him by God to do these things.
Now I have to say, I don't see a Jewish/Christian/Islamic universe in Tolkien. I only see things that can be interpreted losely. You might actually have to be looking for it to see it. And to be honest, if you are looking for anything, you might prejudice yourself to see it. Nevertheless, you can make a case for it.
|
|
|
Thanks for the complement and for such an impressive reply. It made me go back and think of all the reasons why I came up with my seemingly uncompromising conclusion.
#1 I think that Tolkien was deliberately avoiding the singularly monotheistic view, by creating the Valar, who in their role on Arda, did have the characteristics of gods, somewhat distant, non-involved gods, but not as distant as Iluvatar…. Functionally, it was polytheistic, though. The beings who acted upon Arda and wielded god-like power were in all ways gods, although they were gods who were servants of a greater God. I think the difference has been made clear by Tolkien, as he allows only Iluvatar to have the Creative power, whereas the Valar can use, and manipulate that which he has created.
This is similar to the situation of the ancient Greek gods who were somewhat limited in their creative abilities but had great power over that which already existed. The Greeks had a sense of a cosmos and creative power beyond the physical world and their gods.
From my post to Aule (sorry, didn’t see yours when I posted it): Tolkien states that there is only one will and all other wills are subservient, whether or not they think they are. This is not open to interpretation.
The confusion arises because of the resemblance in the physical nature of the Ainur to the pantheons of Greek. But they are not the same. The Olympians all had a will of their own that was separate and distinct from each other and their purpose sometimes went against the purpose of the each other. The primary creator is not outlined in the Greek mythology. There is no substitute for Eru. Manwë is not Zeus. Zeus has a will of his own. Manwë doesn’t.
#2 They did have the concept of Logos or the thought underlying the physical structure of the universe, which could be similar to Iluvator's music.
As I have said before I am not very familiar with Greek mythology and what I know I got from conversations with my friends, but I always thought that Logos was not a rational consciousness and was in fact much like the Imperishable Flame or Lucas’s Force. A sort of energy flowing through the whole universe in all depths and detail. There is an inherent ‘tendency’ in this force but it is not a rational being that plans the nature of the whole thing. It is much like a spring, which has an inherent state.[1] A rational force did not determine this state. It just is. The gods of the Greeks were true gods in that they did have control over their destiny and were not subservient to any other rational force. However the state of Logos subconsciously influenced their actions.
This is not the same as the Ainur being influenced by Illùvatar. Illùvatar is a rational being while Logos is not. Illùvatar has mapped out the entire course of history and everything that goes on in it from beginning to end is already predetermined by the music.
#3 Nearly all polytheistic religions have an ultimate creator or creative force, an elemental force which exists in a plane different from the gods.
This is the most contentious point and I am glad that you brought it up. This is the reason why I initially believed that a polytheistic interpretation could exist. It was when I was thinking about the definition of Gods and polytheism that I realised that Tolkien is in fact depicting a monotheistic universe.
Here is the big difference between a polytheistic religion and a monotheistic religion: In the polytheistic religion the Gods have the power and will to go against the ‘Great Plan’. Usually they don’t but if they wanted to they could. In most polytheistic religions, the Primary Creative Force (to use Tolkien’s words) is not a rational being, but rather state of being with an inherent tendency. Examples of this are the Logos that you mentioned and Karma of the polytheistic interpretation of Hinduism [2].
In monotheistic religions the Primary Creator is rational and he has a plan and his plan is always carried out. Eru’s plan is actually carried out the Ainur and the Melkor but also by all the lesser beings of the world. So how do you make the distinction between God and not-God?
In that lies the problem with your definition of God. According to your definition of God, humans are Gods as well. Every rational being does in a monotheistic universe is actually carrying out the will of God.
But I hope you or someone else will take the last point further because there is definitely something worthwhile in your reasoning. [3]
End-notes
[1] Logos is the force of reason or 'logic'. This is very similar to Kharma or the law of cause and effect. If any one has any insight into the nature of Logos please let me know because all that i know about it is from discussions with friends.
[2] Hinduism as stated repeatedly by many posters can have various interpretations. I am only looking at the polytheistic interpretation as that is the only one which is necessary as an example of polytheism.
You could argue that Hinduism has a Primary Creator who is rational in the form of Shiva the Cosmic Dancer. But I would say that this is the monotheistic interpretation and is a completely different religion. By saying that Hinduism has a Rational Creator you would in fact be supporting my argument that monotheistic religions have a rational creator.
[3] If there are any Matrix fans reading this, I would like to look at it in terms of Isiah Berlin’s Dual Liberties.
MC:We're both part of the same hypocrisy, senator, but never think it applies to my family.
|
|
|
| by -
BB-15
(Sun Oct 19 02:49:08)
|
|
| UPDATED Sun Oct 19 02:51:25 |
Hi again Consigliere: You said;
"Tolkien states that there is only one will and all other wills are subservient, whether or not they think they are. This is not open to interpretation."
* IMHO care is needed with the wording of Tolkien's myth with respect to God's will, God's plan and the will of all other created intelligent beings.
The Essence of monotheism; I submit that monotheism's only universal concept is that there is one God that is the creator God. It can be called the Aton (the first known description), Para Brahman, Yahweh, Allah, Father/Jesus/Holy Spirit, or the Great Spirit.
The next issue of the relationship between God and will is IMHO subject to different interpretations.
* Aspects of God, Will and Evil
No Freewill; Do intelligent created beings have free will? If they do not and every action is the will of God, then God is responsible for all the evils throughout time.
Predestination; With this concept God knows the fate of every being before their creation. Since God is the creator and God creates beings that God knows will do evil, then God is responsible for all the evils that his created beings do and is therefore responsible for all evil.
Limits on the power of God; I'll let Tolkien describe this concept which he does very well.
"But Eru could not enter wholly into the world and its history, which is, however great, only a finite Drama. He must as Author always remain 'outside' the Drama, even though that Drama depends on His design and His will for it beginning and continuance, in every detail and moment." "Morgoth's Ring: Athrabeth Finrod Ah Andreth"
Since God is the creator of the universe and God's will sets the universe in motion, then of course the "Drama" of the world depends on God's design and will. Without God there would be no world. But God is not completely in the world ("remain outside the drama"). God does not completely control the world. And God does not have complete foreknowledge of the events of the world. Therefore God is not responsible for evil.
* Free will in Action in the Silmarillion;
Iluvatar at the moment of creation, does not know all that Melkor will do. At the start of the Ainulindale Iluvatar creates the Ainur (Valar and Maiar) at the beginning of creation. Iluvatar creates a theme of great Music (a grand plan) but Melkor through free will goes his own direction.
"Iluvatar sat and hearkened, and for a great while it seemed good to him, for in the music there were no flaws. But as the theme progressed, it came into the heart of Melkor to interweave matters of his own imagining that were not in accord with the theme of Iluvatar" (Sil. p. 16)
This indicates to me that Iluvatar is not aware at that moment of creation the direction that Melkor will go to, that is to become the Satan of Middle Earth. So, at the moment of creating Melkor, Iluvatar only sees good and only creates good. Therefore Iluvatar/God is not the creator of evil. Evil is the result of the process of free will.
After this, Iluvatar leaves to go off and do other things. Iluvatar knows that the grand design of the Music will come true;
"no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite"
So, Iluvatar created Melkor but he does not create Melkor's evil deeds. And while the overall plan of the world created by Iluvatar will come true, the actions within the world are not controlled by Iluvatar but come from free will. So, Iluvatar is not involved with how the world will descend into evil.
* The will of the gods
You also said;
" The Olympians all had a will of their own that was separate and distinct from each other and their purpose sometimes went against the purpose of the each other."
From the Letters of JRR Tolkien, #153, discusses the existence of Free Will and that Morgoth had Free Will as well.
"even if Morgoth broke the supreme ban against making other 'rational' creatures like Elves or Men."
By, Morgoth braking the "supreme ban" he did the worst that could be done. And looking at the Valar and Maiar as a whole I do not see a difference in the harmony or disharmony between them and the gods of Olympus.
But Tolkien has a creator God, Iluvatar, in his myth. But in Egyptian mythology there is Aton. In Hinduism there is Para Brahman. In some Native American beliefs there is the Great Spirit. But you may say; these creator Gods are different than those of the Abraham tradition. True, but God is not limited to the Abraham conception.
For instance Deism contains;
"1. belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism).
2. belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it."
"Voltaire and J. J. Rousseau were deists, as were Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington."
infoplease.com
TO SUM IT UP; The monotheistic creator God is a broad concept. It includes the beliefs of Thomas Jefferson (Deism) and Sri Swami Chidananda (Hinduism). From this broad definition one can define Tolkien's fictional universe as having a monotheistic God. However, one can also notice a similarity between Tolkien's myth and religious systems like Hinduism, the Egyptian pantheon and other religious systems that can be interpreted either as monotheistic or polytheistic depending on the point of view of the interpretation. I again submit that Tolkien's myth can still be viewed with either religious conception.
I will stop at this point since I have given enough information for one post.
Have a good one, BB ;-)
it's just in my humble opinion - IMHO -
|
|
|
This conversation really has three branches. 1) What did Tolkien mean to say. 2) What did Tolien actually say in terms of the stories themselves and comments on the stories. 3) How can these views fit into already existing religous views.
1) I believe in the concept of incidental inspiration. People accidently say things they never intended to say with good results. You might say something out of the blue, and it speaks something into their life as if you were answering a lifelong question. And you only realize it if they tell you so.
So Tolkien may well have said and wrote things that I will call incidental inspiration. He may not have been aware of exactly what the reader would see in it, because it was never intended.
2) I'm of the newly formed opinion, that every once in awhile Tolkien contradicts himself in some of the interviews he gave, and perhaps it was unconsciously because of the audience he was speaking to.
I've done it, you've done it (most likely). He was a gracious man. And it is human nature to want to relate to your audience, and also to avoid offending your audience. And also, sometimes we have what I will call a late-stage revelation about ourselves.
Insightful people tend to grow. And when they reflect back on their own life, they may realize that some of their motives were not what they thought at the time. In a time of honest reflection, he may have changed his mind. An example, I can go out and write a story. In my mind I want to do it out of love for the reader. But after years of reflection, "Hmmm, a part of me wanted to impress a girl! That's why I asked her if she would proof read it."
3) There are common threads in religion. And everybody roots for their own team. "We'll our religion goes back 2000 years before your religion!" And so everyone likes to take credit for being the first and most accurate.
Genetics shows that the "Eve" theory is correct. The eve theory is not based upon the Bible theory. Rather, it is saying that if men evolved (please don't suck this into an evolution debate-let it go) then they came from one woman and spread out accross the world. And the way they conclude this is somehow by looking at common threads in the genetic codes.
So for now, lets say you can believe in creation or you can believe in evolution, but either way, science shows that somewhere, the human race began.
Evolutionists theorize in africa. And creationists theorize around Iraq.
So, at one time, peoples came from the same general areas, and then migrated throughout the world.
My theory is this, there was a common spiritual view, and as people's moved further and further away, they developed and evolved. Things were added, and things were taken away.
Every culture in the known ancient world had a story of a judgment of mankind and a flood. All the way from Assyria into Northern Africa. And even though there were polytheistic cultures, there were also monotheistic writings found in many of these cultures. And these writings pre-dated Abraham.
I like ancient history. And there are two kinds of ancient history. Josephus style (Local reporter/recorder) and Mythical. The Babylonians and Greeks loved to record things. And so did the Egyptians. Josephus was a Jewish priest who lived at the most important time in human history. Cleopatra, Mark Anthony, Ceasar, Jesus, John the baptist, Herod the Great...etc. So he is one of the favorite historians. He talked about all of these figures.
Josephus had the best seat in the house. He was a part of what was essentially a seperatist Jewish monastary who withdrew from society. And they felt compelled to record Jewish history at the time of great upheaval.
At some point when the Romans reduced Jerusalem to Rubble, he surrendered to the Romans, and because of some interesting events, he became a Roman reporter!
So he had views of virtually every popular culture.
There are many many lost books! Josephus and the famous Greek author both refer to books that we no longer have. These books chronicled the ancient worlds. And here was one of the stories/myths.
Noah brought books with him when the earth was flooded. And these chronicled the pre-diluvium (pre-flood) world.
Was there a flood. Ask an Archaeologist from the middle east. There is no doubt that there was a huge flood throughout the Middle East in the known populated areas. I think that they have found some great artifacts in the past 15-20 years. But there are several problems with just digging anywhere in the middle east.
And some speculate that when Moses wrote the Torah, he had access to these books. Also, the basic Abrahamic theory is that he also had direct conversations with God and direct revelation of events.
But the point is this, if we came from similar areas of the world, and spread out, this could explain why you will find overlapping spiritual beliefs in Hinduism, Christianity, Islam and Judaism.
Now, again, be civil, no debates about such and such. Everyone has the right to choose their own spiritual quest, and seek answers to their own spiritual questions. My message is not to say all truth is subjective and all religions are equally correct. But you will find some themes in every religion which have some commonality.
This is probably why Tolkien's mythical religion speaks to many cultures, and many religous perspectives. We actually do have some basic concepts in common. And we disagree on finer points. We all believe in love as a goal. We all believe that "Truth" is a good thing. We all believe that seeking wisdom and insight are good things. Even atheists and agnostics agree on these types of things. (An inner compass?)
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Sun Oct 19 10:49:39)
|
|
Genetics shows that the "Eve" theory is correct. The eve theory is not based upon the Bible theory. Rather, it is saying that if men evolved (please don't suck this into an evolution debate-let it go) then they came from one woman and spread out accross the world. And the way they conclude this is somehow by looking at common threads in the genetic codes.
Sorry, but you can't state something like that and not expect a response. Evolution aside, I thoroughly disagree with the idea that we all came from one woman. There just wouldn't be enough genetic diversity. Not to mention the question as to where the males she copulated with came from.
If a brother and sister, or even first cousins, mate and breed, the chances of birth defects increase. Do that over a bunch of generations, and you're going to have a lot of defects. I have read estimates that the original genetic pool for our species started out at anywhere from 6,000 to 20,000. That is, those who had evolved enough to be considered part of our species.
As for the common threads in the genetic codes: there are significant common threads in the genetic codes across species. We share something like 97% of the same DNA as a banana. That 3% difference is significant, however.
Beyond that, whether we came from Adam and Eve or not is irrelevant, if you believe the accounts given in the Bible, because everybody but Noah and his family was wiped out in the flood, and it all started over again.
Why do we have such regional differences in people? Why are the Chinese physically different from northern Europeans? It seems logical that groups of people spread out at some early stage and evolved somewhat distinctly, but I seriously doubt it happened from just one woman, and over so short a period of time.
Was there a flood. Ask an Archaeologist from the middle east. There is no doubt that there was a huge flood throughout the Middle East in the known populated areas. I think that they have found some great artifacts in the past 15-20 years. But there are several problems with just digging anywhere in the middle east.
I have no doubt that there was a huge flood in the Middle East. In fact, I have no doubt that there were many. The Tigris and the Euphrates certainly flooded Mesopotamia, likely many times, and there is evidence of major floods in the Black Sea area as well. I have no doubt that there have been major floods all over the world. Hey, there was a pretty massive flood in the mid-west of the United States about 10 years ago.
The Biblical flood was supposed to have covered the entire world. This is not possible. In order for that much rain to fall in so short a period of time, all animal life would have been wiped out before the first drop of rain fell. The air pressure would have had to have been roughly 14,000 psi.
Then there's the issue of a boat, roughly the size of 3 American football fields (over three levels) carrying 2 of every species. Not possible. First of all, wooden boats can't be that big. They can't stand the stress. There would be constant and significant leaking. We can't make wooden boats anywhere near that big today, let alone in 3,000 BC.
Then there's the problem of getting all the animals from all over the world onto that boat, and then back again afterwards. Someone on this board suggested that continental drift occurred after the flood. Can you imagine the upheaval that would have had to take place for the continents to move that far apart in so short a period of time? Geez, when tectonic plates move a few feet, we get massive earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions.
The flood motif is common to many cultures, all over the world. This is because floods occur all over the world, at various times, and human beings attempt to explain such things in whatever way they know how. To primitive people, this meant divine intervention, whether by God, or gods. To these people, the world was not such a big place. To the early people of Mesopotamia, the world was pretty much Mesopotamia.
This is probably why Tolkien's mythical religion speaks to many cultures, and many religous perspectives. We actually do have some basic concepts in common. And we disagree on finer points. We all believe in love as a goal. We all believe that "Truth" is a good thing. We all believe that seeking wisdom and insight are good things. Even atheists and agnostics agree on these types of things. (An inner compass?)
Yes, there are many common elements, but there are differences too. There are people today in New Guinea who believe that cannibalism is a good thing. An inner compass? Yes, it's called instinct and logic. People don't get together to form a community in order to be nasty to each other. It is natural that cultural mores will form based on the betterment of society as a whole. Love and truth are examples of this. There are common elements because these common elements make sense.
|
|
|
I just did a search on "Eve Theory". I've read about it, but not in years. And yes, there are debates about the validity of the theory. I just copied this post from one of the sites so that people who are wondering what I am referring to can read it. So, I'll print this and go back and look at your responce.
The "Out of Africa," "African Eve," or "Mitochondrial Eve" theory, proposed in 1987, has captured the popular imagination. Cover stories in magazines gave graphic accounts of this alleged "mother of us all," said to have lived about 200,000 years ago. Since the theory dealt with the origin of modern humans (not the origin of all humans), biochemist Allan Wilson (University of California, Berkeley) was a bit out of line in dubbing her "Eve." However, that historical mistake may have actually enhanced her popularity.
Although the theory was controversial, it was hailed as an important contribution by biochemistry to the understanding of human origins. It now appears that the results of that study were statistically flawed. Newer studies do not rule out an African origin for modern humans, but they do not favor Africa above other parts of the Old World. It further appears that the method utilized is incapable of determining either the date or the geographic location of the first humans.
The theory seemed to be rather brilliantly conceived. It dealt with DNA from energy-producing organelles called mitochondria, which are in the cell but outside the nucleus. This mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is inherited only from the mother. The father's mtDNA ends up "on the cutting-room floor." Hence, there is no mixing of male and female mtDNA from generation to generation.
The Berkeley biochemists who developed the theory, Wilson, Rebecca Cann, and Mark Stoneking, made several reasonable but unprovable assumptions. With no mixing from generation to generation, they assumed that all changes in the mtDNA were the result of mutations over time. It was further assumed that these mutations occurred at a constant rate. On the basis of these assumptions, the researchers believed they had access to a "molecular clock." Because mtDNA is thought to mutate faster than other DNA, it is favored because it would lend itself to a more fine-grained index of time.
The original 1987 study involved mtDNA from 136 women from many parts of the world having various racial backgrounds. The analysis led back to a single ancestral mtDNA molecule from a woman living in sub-Saharan Africa about 200,000 years ago. A subsequent and more rigorous 1991 study seemed to confirm and secure the theory.
Unfortunately, there was a serpent stalking this "Eve" as well as the first Eve. The researchers used a computer program designed to reveal a "maximum parsimony" phylogeny. This would be the family tree with the least number of mutational changes, based on the assumption that evolution would have taken the most direct and efficient path—a rather strange assumption, considering the presumed random and haphazard nature of evolutionary change. The computer program was, however, far more complicated than the biochemists realized. They did not know that the result of their single computer run was biased by the order in which the data were entered. It is now recognized that with thousands of computer runs and with the data entered in different random orders, an African origin for modem humans is not preferred over the other continents. There is also the suggestion that in the original study the biochemists were influenced in their interpretation of the computer data by their awareness of other evidence, which seemed to them to favor an African origin.
Henry Gee, on the Editorial Staff of Nature, describes the results of the mtDNA study as "garbage." He states that considering the number of items involved (136 mtDNA sequences), the number of maximally parsimonious trees exceeds one billion.[1] Geneticist Alan Templeton (Washington University) suggests that low-level mixing among early human populations may have scrambled the DNA sequences sufficiently so that the question of the origin of modern humans and a date for "Eve" can never be settled by mtDNA.[2] In a letter to Science, Mark Stoneking (one of the original researchers who is now at Pennsylvania State University) acknowledges that "African Eve" has been invalidated.[3] There is general recognition that Africans have greater genetic diversity, but the significance of that fact remains unclear.
The "African Eve" theory represented the second major attempt by biochemists to contribute to the question of human origins. Earlier, Berkeley biochemist Vincent Sarich estimated that the chimpanzee-human separation took place between five and seven million years ago, based upon molecular studies. Although that date was much later than paleoanthropologists had estimated from fossils, Sarich's date is now almost universally accepted.
In an article written before but published after the recent challenge to "African Eve," Wilson (who died in 1991) and Cann (now at the University of Hawaii, Manoa) laud the virtues of molecular biology in addressing human origins. They state: ". . . living genes must have ancestors, whereas dead fossils may not have descendants." The molecular approach, they claim, ". . . concerns itself with a set of characteristics that is complete and objective." In contrast, the fossil record is spotty. "Fossils cannot, in principle, be interpreted objectively. . . ."[4] They conclude that the method of the paleoanthropologists tends toward circular reasoning. They are right! Creationists have expressed that fact for many years.
However, Wilson and Cann were not able to see the logical fallacy in their molecular biology when it addressed phylogeny. This approach, known as molecular taxonomy, molecular genetics, or the newer related field of molecular archaeology, also traffics in circular reasoning. Molecular genetics, hiding behind the respect we all have for the science of genetics and the objectivity of that science, is highly infused with subjective evolutionary assumptions. In this field, the commitment to evolution is so complete that Wilson and Cann understand "objective evidence" as ". . . evidence that has not been defined, at the outset, by any particular evolutionary model."[5]
The mtDNA study of African Eve, as well as other aspects of molecular genetics, deals with mutations in the DNA nucleotides. Perhaps we could be forgiven for asking: "When an evolutionist looks at human DNA nucleotides, how does he know which ones are the result of mutations and which ones have remained unchanged?" Obviously, to answer that question he must know what the original or ancient sequences were. Since only God is omniscient, how does the evolutionist get the information regarding those sequences which he believes existed millions of years ago? He uses as his guide the DNA of the chimpanzee.[6] In other words, the studies that seek to prove that human DNA evolved from chimp DNA start with the assumption that chimp DNA represents the original condition (or close to it) from which human DNA diverged. That is circularity with a vengeance!
It is also necessary for the evolutionist to determine the rate of mutational changes in the DNA if these mutational changes are to be used as a "molecular clock." Since there is nothing in the nuclear DNA or the mtDNA molecules to indicate how often they mutate, we might also ask how the evolutionist calibrates his "molecular clock." Sarich, one of the pioneers of the molecular-clock concept, began by calculating the mutation rates of various species ". . . whose divergence [evolution] could be reliably dated from fossils."[7] He then applied that calibration to the chimpanzee-human split, dating that split at from five to seven million years ago. Using Sarich's mutation calibrations, Wilson and Cann applied them to their mtDNA studies, comparing ". . . the ratio of mitochondrial DNA divergence among humans to that between humans and chimpanzees."[8] By this method, they arrived at a date of approximately 200,000 years ago for African Eve. Hence, an evolutionary timescale obtained from an evolutionary interpretation of fossils was superimposed upon the DNA molecules. Once again, the circularity is obvious. The alleged evidence for evolution from the DNA molecules is not an independent confirmation of evolution but is, instead, based upon an evolutionary interpretation of fossils as its starting point.
We humans are enamored with our ability to develop sophisticated experiments and to process massive amounts of data. Our problem is that our ability to process data has outstripped our ability to evaluate the quality of the data. Computers are not able to generate "truth" independently, nor can they cleanse and purify data. With the recognition that mtDNA studies are incapable of determining the origin of modern humans, biochemists are now turning to nuclear DNA to help them solve the problem. There are also attempts to recover DNA from Neanderthals and other fossil humans. More and more, molecular genetics and sophisticated computer programs are being enlisted in the service of evolution. The results are advertised as independent confirmations of evolution when in reality they are not. I suspect that molecular techniques are the wave of the future for evolutionary studies. This approach is very convincing, because it appears to be so "scientific" to those who do not recognize the evolutionary presuppositions.
Paleoanthropologists such as Christopher Stringer (British Museum of Natural History) are now claiming that an African origin for modern humans is not dependent upon mtDNA studies alone. The fossils also are said to suggest it. However, an exhaustive survey of the human fossil evidence does not support an African origin for modern humans. In fact, when all of the relevant human fossil material is placed on a time-chart, even according to the evolutionist's dates for those fossils, the results show that humans have not evolved from a primate stock.[9] The fossil evidence against human evolution is so strong as to effectively falsify that theory.
The Bible is God's revelation to those created in His image. Genesis is part of that revelation. God's revelation is more than just the passing on of information. It is the imparting of truth which humans could not know by any other means. The failure of the "African Eve" theory is just another illustration of the impossibility of constructing an authentic record of human origins by scientific means. It is for this very reason that God gave us an authentic revelation of our origins in the book of Genesis.
-- References --
Henry Gee, "Statistical Cloud over African Eden," Nature, 355 (13 February 1992): 583.
Marcia Barinaga, "'African Eve' Backers Beat a Retreat," Science, 255 (7 February 1992): 687.
S. Blair Hedges, Sudhir Kumar, Koichiro Tamura, and Mark Stoneking, "Human Origins and Analysis of Mitochondrial DNA Sequences," Science, 255 (7 February 1992): 737-739.
Allan C. Wilson and Rebecca L. Cann, "The Recent African Genesis of Humans," Scientific American, April 1992: 68.
Wilson and Cann, 68. Emphasis added.
Marcia Barinaga, "Choosing a Human Family Tree," Science, 255 (7 February 1992): 687.
Wilson and Cann, 68. Bracketed material added.
Wilson and Cann, 72.
See Marvin L. Lubenow, Bones of Contention (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, to be published in December 1992). This work is the most extensive treatment of human fossils to be published as yet by a creationist
* Professor of Biblical Studies and Apologetics at Christian Heritage College.
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Sun Oct 19 11:21:58)
|
|
While I very much disagree with the "African Eve" theory, any statement debunking it, that ends in the phrase "It is for this very reason that God gave us an authentic revelation of our origins in the book of Genesis." is suspect as far as I'm concerned.
Beyond that, I don't think evolutionists are saying that human beings evolved from Chimpanzees. That would mean that Chimpanzees stagnated and ceased to evolve. The idea is that the various species alive today evolved from common sources. Chimpanzees and humans may have evolved from a common ancestor, but in different ways.
I agree that it is difficult, and perhaps impossible, to construct an authentic record of human origins by scientific means. It is difficult to gather the necessary evidence and to know the environmental conditions et al, in order to simulate any sort of experiment that is conclusive. The lack of ability to prove evolution does not equate to it being false. We cannot prove creationism either. All we can do is look at what we do know, extrapolate logically, and look for more evidence with an open mind.
|
|
|
You know, there were probably a 100 sites on the search. I just happened to open the very first one. And rather than go back and find a "non-creationist" site, I just figured I'd rather not read through a 100 sites for the best article.
I'll just leave it to people to do their own search if they are curious. There are both secular and creationist sites that get involved in these things.
As far as the creationist argument, I didn't read down that far. So, I'm not sure what their perspective is. I was in a hurry and only read the beginning few paragraphs, just to make sure he was recaping what the Eve Theory was.
BTW, my view was based upon a USA today article and articles that were turning up in newspapers, not these deep scientific or spiritual arguments. So, who knows, maybe they've backtracked on the "Eve Theory?"
|
|
|
Actually, I'm not here to argue the points of creationism or evolution. I do like reading opinions about these issues. And I really think that if we went into a creationism/evolution discussion, it would turn into a debate.
Concerning floods, the issue was a flood that wiped out mankind. And at the time, all of mankind lived in the region between the tigris and Euphrates, and of course another river which is now extinct.
Was the term "whole earth" metaphorically descriptive of the known earth? This inhabited area could have been much much less than 100 square miles. Much smaller than the midwest flood.
Some terms had dual meanings. For instance, the phrase, "In that day" could be translated, "In that 24 hour period", or "In that portion of the 24 hour period when the sun was up" or, it also meant, "That period of time from the beginning of an event until its conclussion."
So, the "Day of Battle" doesn't mean a 24 hour period when a battle occurred, but it could mean the five month period from the day the first soldiers arrived until the battle ended. Actually battles were much quicker back in those days. And many of them were just long fueds. But some words are translated in a broad fashion, and are only understood within the context they are given. And therefore,
I don't feel qualified to imply that I fully understand the flood. The idea was that mankind had grown corrupt, and that there is a point of no return for society when it falls into moral decay.
I think we generally focus on the moral of the story rather than details, "Well, if a blade of grass on the Himalayas was sticking out above the water, then it was all just a great big lie." Rather, I see a moral that says, men left to their own devices stray. And you find this principle whenever you have any people without a strong moral voice. Example, the wild wild west. People moved out west, and there were few churches or synogogues, and essentially, people tended to be wild.
People debate about such things as to the extent of the floods. "What about fish fossils on mountaintops?", "Is there really a boat stuck in a mountain?" and it never ends because so many other things start flying out. That's why I think evo/creationism is best left to spiritual or scientific web sites. I'm always leery about opening a bottle when I don't know if I can get the cap back on.
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Sun Oct 19 12:55:48)
|
|
Concerning floods, the issue was a flood that wiped out mankind. And at the time, all of mankind lived in the region between the tigris and Euphrates, and of course another river which is now extinct.
No, all of mankind was not in that region at that time. Indian civilization is far older than that, for example. It is just what the people in that region knew as "all of mankind". This is the point I'm making: the flood story is a fable based on the perception of the people in that region, at that time, and is actually taken from a far older Babylonian writing with different characters and multiple gods.
|
|
|
Hi Aule. I see you as a fair minded and interesting person. And in some other place and time I think we could have a great discussion on these things.
But I concede that there are thousands of websites that could do this subject more justice than I ever could. There are much more knowledgeable and downright smarter people who are evolutionists and creationists.
To tell you the truth, I have read a great deal on this subject, because personally, I believe "truth" is never subjective. Either there is a God or there isn't. If there is a God, either he has revealed himself or he has not. Either he made the world, or he didn't. Either he created man, or man evolved.
I don't believe truth is so ambiguous that God can exist for someone and not for another. I think God can reveal different aspects of his nature. And that God can be complex like people are complex. For example, a God of Holiness and a God of love do not comflict.
If truth is really subjective, and everything is simply a matter of opinion, then no one can actually come to any conclusion. There are no absolutes. But if that is the truth, that there are no absolutes and there is no God, then wishing there was a god, wouldn't change the facts.
So, I'm not really a fence straddler when it comes to "truth", and so I ask myself hard questions, and I ask others hard questions. But always with the aim of learning the truth.
I'd like to think I could give the most compelling arguments to explain my own positions on these things. Because it really ends up being a debate about the validity and accuracy of the Bible, whether or not it is correct or a collection of well intentioned myths.
And you have obviously thought out these questions as well. And have strong oppinions. I've also worked out what I believe after many years of searching.
If you'd like to do an off thread discussion, I'd be glad to listen to your view, and you can ask me my opinions concerning Evolution/Creationism...etc.
|
|
|
1.
Evolution aside, I thoroughly disagree with the idea that we all came from one woman. There just wouldn't be enough genetic diversity. Not to mention the question as to where the males she copulated with came from.
If a brother and sister, or even first cousins, mate and breed, the chances of birth defects increase. Do that over a bunch of generations, and you're going to have a lot of defects. I have read estimates that the original genetic pool for our species started out at anywhere from 6,000 to 20,000. That is, those who had evolved enough to be considered part of our species.
Our species did not "start out". According to evolutionary biology, modern species emerged from previous species in stops and starts. Believe it or not, all human beings must have had a common maternal ancestor. The idea is that when chance mutation greatly favors a particular individual to survive longer or reproduce better - then over a long period of time that individual’s progeny replaces all the progeny of less favored individuals. All competing lines either diverge or cease to be! Let me emphasize however that most mutations do not give an overwhelming advantage to a single genetic line. Therefore, there are many more genetic variations within a species than there are divergent species.
2.
...for the common threads in the genetic codes: there are significant common threads in the genetic codes across species. We share something like 97% of the same DNA as a banana. That 3% difference is significant, however.
A human and a banana do NOT share 97% common DNA - perhaps 50% DNA! Why even that high? Because the kernel code solving the fundamental problem of life on Earth requires more lines of source than do the applications! 
3.
The Biblical flood was supposed to have covered the entire world. This is not possible. In order for that much rain to fall in so short a period of time, all animal life would have been wiped out before the first drop of rain fell. The air pressure would have had to have been roughly 14,000 psi. ...
The flood motif is common to many cultures, all over the world. This is because floods occur all over the world, at various times, and human beings attempt to explain such things in whatever way they know how. To primitive people, this meant divine intervention, whether by God, or gods. To these people, the world was not such a big place. To the early people of Mesopotamia, the world was pretty much Mesopotamia.
With God, all things are possible - but you are right that, given the evidence, it is almost impossible for a flood to have been worldwide during the time of man. However, it could easily be that there was a local flood and that the various flood stories (including the Babylonian one) are all derived from a common very ancient source. Even the Greeks had a flood story that had a boat with animals and went very much along the lines of the Hebrew account. Very likely, the flood story is metaphorical - similar to the story of the sun stopping in the sky so that Joshua and his Hebrew warriors could beat the Amorites in the battle of Gibeon - I imagine that would be even more disconcerting for the environment!
4.
Yes, there are many common elements, but there are differences too. There are people today in New Guinea who believe that cannibalism is a good thing. An inner compass? Yes, it's called instinct and logic. People don't get together to form a community in order to be nasty to each other. It is natural that cultural mores will form based on the betterment of society as a whole. Love and truth are examples of this. There are common elements because these common elements make sense.
It all comes down to one thing – and that is how do you act towards your neighbor? Do you treat him “as thyself” – or do you eat him? - Metaphorically or actually. The common elements “make sense” because they are really principles of behavior that are not arbitrary, but if adhered to, a better society and way of life naturally follow.
"O calm, dishonourable, vile submission!"
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Mon Oct 20 06:37:20)
|
|
You're right about the banana. I checked, and it is about half. I apologize for the mistake.
I realize that "modern species emerged from previous species in stops and starts." I was using the term "started out" loosely. The point is that we didn't start out from a single Homo Sapien. Millions of years ago, in a previous species - who knows? Apparently, the Eve theory stated that this took place 200,000 years ago, which is about the time that Homo Sapiens showed up.
I agree that the flood story is metaphorical, and it may describe a common experience among ancestors in neighbouring regions far in the past. I have only ever pointed this out in order to make the point that we can't take all of the Old Testament literally, and that aspects of the religion itself were derived from previous mythologies.
It all comes down to one thing – and that is how do you act towards your neighbor? Do you treat him “as thyself” – or do you eat him? - Metaphorically or actually. The common elements “make sense” because they are really principles of behavior that are not arbitrary, but if adhered to, a better society and way of life naturally follow.
Isn't that pretty much what I said?
|
|
|
Yes, there are many common elements, but there are differences too. There are people today in New Guinea who believe that cannibalism is a good thing. An inner compass? Yes, it's called instinct and logic. People don't get together to form a community in order to be nasty to each other. It is natural that cultural mores will form based on the betterment of society as a whole. Love and truth are examples of this. There are common elements because these common elements make sense.
It all comes down to one thing – and that is how do you act towards your neighbor? Do you treat him “as thyself” – or do you eat him? - Metaphorically or actually. The common elements “make sense” because they are really principles of behavior that are not arbitrary, but if adhered to, a better society and way of life naturally follow.
Isn't that pretty much what I said?
There are several internally consistent logics that different peoples have chosen from in their development of cultures. Our Western society with its relatively advanced and benign cultural mores did not come automatically through logic and instinct. The West developed over thousands of painful years inheriting the wisdom/advances of different ancient cultures that made key advanced that enabled the West to go further than other civilizations. I believe quite notable among them was the Greek concept of the importance (and hence political freedom) of the individual and the rational nature of the universe; and just as important was the Hebrew notion of equality before God and especially Jesus' great message of loving thy neighbor in the sermon on the mount. The adoption of Christianity by Rome was of paramount importance in the development of Western civilization.
Other cultures not having the West's cultural legacy have gone completely different directions. Your example of cannibals of New guinea I would say are still stuck in a pre-culture of prehistoric savagery not having the benefit of being open to the outside world's ideas. Other cultures fared well for a time and then disappeared. For example, the nomadic Mongol warrior culture unquestionably had markedly different values than the West but could not sustain itself for long.
Of course, the East is fascinating because it actually has a longer record of civilization that the West. But here too, slavery persisted much longer and was much more pervasive than the West (at all levels of society). I believe the main reason Islam was left behind is because they rejected Christian moral tenets of equality and responsibility towards others and the Greek values of rationalism and individuality in favor of Islamic values of predestination, conquest, and submission to authority.
China too will never be as advanced as the West as long as they continue their tradition of the unimportance of the individual and human life in general and the paramount importance of legalism and the state. Have you ever seen the Constitution of the Republic of China? Not beautifully written by any means. It is a mess of assertions of power and sovereignty and directives of the people. We in the West don't know how lucky we truly are.
"O calm, dishonourable, vile submission!"
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Mon Oct 20 17:45:13)
|
|
You won't get any argument from me about the affect of Hellenism on western culture, and in a different but equally important respect, Christianity, but I don't see how this lends itself to the common elements we are talking about. By common elements, we are talking about that which is common to all or most cultures.
|
|
|
You won't get any argument from me about the affect of Hellenism on western culture, and in a different but equally important respect, Christianity, but I don't see how this lends itself to the common elements we are talking about. By common elements, we are talking about that which is common to all or most cultures.
Well, that's just it. There are common cultural elements in how we relate to each other just because we are all human and live on the same planet, but I still think the most important cultural precepts that are ingrained in our consciousness since babyhood are not necessarily held in common. I do agree however that there are fundamental emotions and relationships that are universal to human kind. For examples: the need for companionship and nurturing; the feminine and the masculine; the resolution of conflict; the appropriate expression of base emotions; the elements of human communication. I think it is fascinating that left to their own devices, children from diverse cultural backgrounds, in their play, will create a common language complete with rules of grammar and syntax. It must be similar that human feelings of responsibility and socialization and give and take probably also lead to natural systems of morality. In the long term however, different physical environments and different problems of survival must have a great effect on the development of these systems of moral precepts - and how they play out.
"O calm, dishonourable, vile submission!"
|
|
|
Hello everyone. I've been thinking (can you see the smoke!) about the (exceptions) or negative behavior.
I don't see this as an exception to the rule of there being some what of a compass.
People often say, "Follow your conscience!" Well, some people have a very poorly defined conscience.
If you look at most religous thought, there is a concept of contamination by association. If you hang out with wise people you become wise. If you hang around fools, you are more likely to do something foolish.
And so, there is a concept of holiness and defilement. Holiness is the concept that something is contaminated by goodness. Defilement is the concept of being contaminated by something evil.
If you can have a dysfunctional family where all of the relatives have personality disorders, it can perpetuate itself for generations. So can bad influences defile a town just like it can a family? How far can it spread if there is nothing to counter the influence?
That is why there is also a concept of spiritual preservation. Be a good influence where you are, and if enough good influences exist in a society, they help preserve that society.
The consciencs is not a perfect tool, which is why it has to be gaurded. You can defile a conscience at a very young age. But if you watch children, and take them out of a negative environment, you can teach them the difference between good and bad behavior.
If you watch your children. They will lie to you at an early age. But watch them when they tell you a lie. They always act unnatural. They look down and away. But if you do not correct them, they get good at telling bold face lies to your face with a smile. Same thing happens when they steal things. At first they act sheepish and awkward. But with time, they get good at it.
So, they have a compass (Conscience) but they require parents to help them keep it and to help refine it.
Whenever someone violates conscience over and over and over, then it goes extinct.
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Mon Oct 20 19:11:44)
|
|
But that's what I originally said, Lace. I said there are common elements as well as differences, and that the common elements were due to instinct and logic. They make sense to us intuitively. Environment certainly has an impact, but that's where the common elements stop, and cultures diverge.
|
|
|
Here are two food for thought questions. This is just for fun. And I am not sure that someone will not come up with a plausible answer, making me eat crow. I won't feel bad if you do. But I think you will enjoy these brain teasers.
1) Everyone in the world takes instinct for granted. It's like gravity. It's just there. But we know much more about gravity than instincts.
Think of the complexity of instincts and how they work in every species of creature, no matter what their natural I.Q is. Many animals that are raised apart from their parents, resort to instincts that were never taught to them.
Every instinct is ingenious, and people say, "Isn't mother nature a genious?"
That is stupid statement by the way, to credit a non-thinking force with planning anything. Which is why some people look for a god. Because too many things appear well planned in nature. How can instincts evolve and be passed on from generation to generation? Now think of it from a biochemical aspect, not a "needs" aspect. "Well they needed it!" That answer is not an answer.
Now we have brilliant people on this thread. And I know we have scientists and engineers. How can you be born knowing? And no cyclical answers please.
2)If everything evolved. And natural selection dictated that only the strong survive, then how are sheep on the earth? They are weak and extremely stupid. If left to nature, they shouldn't exist at all.
Could sheep have existed without a shepherd? And I hope we have some shepherd's on our board to answer this. My contention is that sheep cannot survive without a shepherd. They will graze themselves to death if they are not threatened by predators. And I hope someone here can clarify just how vulnerable sheep really are in terms of self-survival. I would rather let someone who has worked with sheep answer that question.
|
|
|
I have sympathy for what you are trying to say, but there are wild sheep around the world. For example big horn sheep are indigenous to the U.S. and Canadian Rocky Mountains. Over a long period of time, sheep, cattle, horses, pigs, and dogs were domesticated and some of their natural awareness and intelligence was bred out of them or never exercised. These animals have a natural social nature, so they readily adapted to human beings and grew dependent on them.
"O calm, dishonourable, vile submission!"
|
|
|
Actually that is a great argument. Okay, this is true, there are various types of sheep.
Now lets go back to our common garden variety sheep. The stupid ones. The ones with no protection (no horns/slow...etc)
Domesticating an animal does not make it stupid. In fact, horses, dogs and virtually every other animal that has prolonged human contact shows great intelligence. Pigs are quite smart, at least as smart as dogs. Cows are pretty smart, but fairly docile. But they can find ways to sneak out. And they often know when they are about to go to the slaughter house, and will sometimes make a great escape when the time nears.
Some animals have great native intelligence, and domesticating them does not diminish their intelligence, nor their instincts.
How many dogs get 3 square meals a day, and yet, they will bury bones in the back-yard only to go back to find them later?
Female dogs instinctively stay close to the pack. Male dogs do not. They have a hunter instinct. So domestic female dogs are generally much better off a leash than male dogs. And they don't run away like male dogs. (Some people will say it works that way in humans too)
|
|
|
The difference between sheep and dogs and horses is that sheep are herders and are happy to learn naught but eating and herding.
Domesticated dogs and horses play a much more active role and social role with humans, hence, though they do become dependent on humans, they retain many instincts and natural intelligence. However, most horses are not really that smart.
Because their wild instincts have been muted, dogs (domesticated the longest) undoubtedly would not fare as well in the wild as do wolves, coyotes, and African dogs.
If all the humans on Earth disappeared, I am sure that the overwhelming majority of tamed animals would soon die. This includes sheep, pigs, cows, dogs, and horses. A very few smarter luckier more resourceful ones would survive and their descendents would inherit the Earth.
Let's face it. If human society suddenly disappeared, and people were left to their own devices, most of them would die off too.
"O calm, dishonourable, vile submission!"
|
|
|
| by -
Nate-skate
(Tue Oct 21 19:00:14)
|
|
| UPDATED Tue Oct 21 19:00:53 |
I'll bet you rarely lose arguments! You are one sharp cookie.
So, I'll ask you to do me a favor. Slip onto my side of the debate team, and argue my point for me. You're the only one here who can challenge yourself.
I'm teasing. I do enjoy your posts, and if you keep it up, I might get smarter.
|
|
|
Oh behave! This board is full of sharp cookies and you are no slouch yourself! I very much enjoyed the challenge and level of discourse. Really, I have to read some posts several times before I really understand them (that is no exaggeration!)
"O calm, dishonourable, vile submission!"
|
|
|
If I wasn't a little attention deficit, I'd probably have been a rocket scientist! I'm not sure if I'm kidding or not? I loved math and science. But I had a really screwed up life up until I hit college.
It was the kind of dysfunctional home where you tried not to be there unless you were sleeping. That atmosphere does not lend itself to study. And yet, God has given me a good mind.
So I sort of breezed through H.S and college on native intelligence alone without ever applying myself. I am an audio learner. Because of that, I was always able to remember things the teachers said. But I could never take notes to save my life. They only served to distract me from listening. And I rarely cracked open any books unless they really interested me.
No, I'm no slouch. But like many, I'm just very good at what I do. I'm not as well rounded as so many on this board are. And you'll have to trust me if you are not already convinced, you are all exceptional. None of you are common.
If you ask me the right question in the right circumstances, I could surprise you. As a matter of fact, I'm extremely good at some things. But none of those things really lend themselves to discussions on these boards.
|
|
|
I believe long-term emotional difficulties can affect everything you do, no matter how smart you are, from school to work to interpersonal relations.
There are many different kinds of intelligence and wisdom depending on life experience and orientation. Some people are extremely well read and are supremely intellectual but also myopic and have a dearth of common sense. Some people are CEOs of companies and are evil twisted SOBs. Others are janitors who find meaning in raising a good family and living a quiet life. There are people who have found refuge in the clergy who never get life experience yet then presume to advise others. Some people are turned intensely inward toward themselves and others are oriented toward others and want to experience all that life has to offer.
I guess the point is that all different kinds of people have something to offer. Even if you haven't read The Silmarillion and the history of the world 10 times over doesn't mean that you might not have a take or an idea that is just what everyone else can't see but is looking for!
"O calm, dishonourable, vile submission!"
|
|
|
Can I ask you a semi-personal question? What do you do with all of your intelligence and insight? Well, you are enlightening some of us, but I was wondering if you do something like teach/counsel??? You don't have to answer. And of course you can PM an answer if you'd like.
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Tue Oct 21 06:54:51)
|
|
As to the question of how we can be born knowing - I don't know.
With regard to evolution, and only the strong surviving: this is not necessarily the case. Genetic mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmfull. Harmfull mutations are sometimes passed on. It is just more likely that beneficial mutations would give an animal an edge in the survival department, thus increasing the probability that they will reproduce and pass on those mutations. Environmental factors and circumstance play a role.
|
|
|
Actually this was one of the points that cause me to question my atheism. We had a great science program in my H.S, and I was into genetics. And I really loved science more than any other subject. But I cut too many chem classes, and it came back to bite me, or I probably would have majored in bio in college. I started out in physics, but gave it up, because it competed with my sports scholarship.
Regarding mutations: Genetics basically refers to DNA/RNA and the computer code which defines pre-programed changes that will occur in an organism. It defines everything from hair color to lip shape.
I had started out an evolutionist, because as an atheist I had to have some reason to explain what I saw. And being a smart kid, I designed this hypothetical model outlining where we were now, and projected our evolution into the future. This was in 6th or 7th grade.
And the teachers were so tickled with my project that they had me doing speeches in science classes. Really it was just a creative sci fi mind thing.
As you well know, the first evolution models were based upon random selection. But it inferred that species developed characteristics based upon environmental needs. Such as long necked creatures growing long necks to reach leaves in trees. And of course, why didn't they grow stubby little necks, because there were always leaves near the ground?
Animals that have adaptability to environments have a coded adaptability. For instance, humans get tanned in the sun. That isn't a genetic development. And neither is it a genetic development for a chameleon to change it's color. Or is it a genetic development for a dogs fur to thicken in the winter.
For natural development to occur, a creatures genes would have to have intelligence. "My neck is not long enough to survive in this environment. It must be 5 feet longer. So now I'll go and grow a neck 5 feet longer and pass on this information to subsequent generations."
When it occurred to me that the only way that genetic codes are broken and altered is through mutations, I began to look at probabilities of positive mutations.
And studies done on mutations show that it takes something catastrophic to be introduced to an organism to impact the genetic code, such as strong doses of radiation, or passing chemicals into the organism before it breeds.
Studies have shown that rather than improving a species, random mutations almost always make the resulting organism weaker and less capable of survival.
For instance, a useless extra arm, or no arms, or no legs. Hulks only happen in comic books. You would think that if you roll the mutation dice enough times, you'd eventually come up with a superman, but that just doesn't happen.
Gene splicing is different, and working to marry different types of corn into a drug resistant type of corn. That is not "random" mutation. Genetic manipulation is a designed attempt to influence something.
This is a "faith" thing. I'm an evolution unbeliever. I don't have faith in the concept that random mutations can explain the complex and wonderful world that we live in. Can you imagine how many "favorable" mutations it would take to turn a monkey into a man? I think the probabilities of that happening are unbelievable, even under the most favorable circumstances. Now multiply the probabilities of that happening millions and millions of times to explain every type of creature on earth. I think it is mathematically impossible no matter how many millions or billions of years you give to turn a single cell or thousands of single cells into what we see now. I think that it takes much more faith to believe that than it does to believe in creation.
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Tue Oct 21 10:32:01)
|
|
You're talking about massive mutations. That's not how it works. Speciation occurs over a very long period of time. It takes something like 100,000 years for mammals to evolve into what is considered a new species, with small changes made along the way.
Did God just plunk us down as is, and we don't change? Obviously, we have, and there are obvious differences between the various races. We are far more alike than we are different, but the fact remains that there are differences. And yes, there are a great many similiarities in our DNA to that of an ape.
While I don't discount the possibility of a Creator, whether it be some sort of being or force of some kind, I find it difficult to believe that any single entity could be responsible for all things in this vast universe, from the smallest sub-atomic particles to the billions of galaxies in our universe. I find it even harder to believe that Christianity (or any other religion) has a clue as to the nature of such a being or what that being expects of us.
In other words, in the unlikely event that there is such a being, I think it is impossible that it is what you or anyone thinks it is. I don't think we have the capacity to even begin to understand such a thing.
Evolution may or may not be correct, but just because our knowledge of it is flawed or incomplete, does not make it false, nor does it mean that the only alternative is God. There is much that we understand now that we once did not know. A thousand years from now, we will no doubt have a different understanding. Even if God exists, there are processes put in place for the way the universe works. It is possible that God designed it all, and evolution is the process by which we came to be what we are.
In any case, whatever God may or may not be is not the issue for me. Religion claiming to have the answers to these questions is. It is a constant quest for understanding. Saying this is the way it is stifles that quest because everything we learn has to be fit within that absolute. Anything that contradicts doctrine must be false.
If you were born in India, you'd likely be a Hindu, a Muslim, or a Buddhist. As it is, you are from a predominantly Christian nation, so that is what you turned to. These religions share some common elements, and they all attempt to explain our existence. That is what people seek - answers. I submit that nobody has the answers yet, and I wonder if we ever will. Two thirds of the population of the Earth does not believe in Christianity, and some have never been exposed to it. Are they going to Hell?
|
|
|
| by -
Nate-skate
(Tue Oct 21 11:58:18)
|
|
| UPDATED Tue Oct 21 12:05:06 |
Wow. That is a different subject/question altogether. And it's not where I'm headed.
We are mostly talking about scientific possibilities and not spiritual possibilities.
If my view is colored by a theological assumption, then I am not in the least bit objective. I have a prejudice, and that bias would cause me to lean towards a conclussion.
And I have to be honest, I went through a scientific journey, because science was my god. And I didn't go through a spiritual journey and then try to look for a science that agreed with it.
Here is one of the most difficult things to defend, and perhaps there is no way around it: But I think you are an extremely intelligent person, and perhaps you may be able to see where I'm coming from, and put it into better words than I could.
If I started out an atheist, and I began a quest to scientifically look for evidence as to whether or not there is a god, and whether or not we evolved or were created, then there has to be a method to go about such a search. And it shouldn't be automatically inferred that I was predispositioned to believe a certain thing because I came to a conclussion that doesn't fit someone elses.
If I am afraid of a particular outcome when I begin my quest, then I already have a bias to avoid that particular conclusion. So, if I am looking to prove there is a god, and want to avoid finding that there is no god, then I have a bias. But on the other hand, if I do not want to find a god, and want to avoid finding a god, then I have a completely different bias.
From a purely scientific perspective, I cannot lean either way. I should be willing to accept that there is a god. And I should be willing to accept that there is no god. I should be able to accept that we did evolve, and were not created as we now appear. Or I should be able to accept that we were created and not evolved in the manner that some say we evolved.
Now here is where I find that discussions tend to break down. Instead of sharing ideas, we begin to infer that the other person is not objective and biased, because we don't like their conclusion.
You are absolutely wrong to assume that I preferred "Christianity" over any other world religion. But there is absolutely no way to prove that, because I can't show you my thoughts. I can only explain my particular view, and hope that you do not think I have a motive to lie about it, or that I was so subconsiously prejudiced to "find God", that I lied to myself.
And I will explain why 1) My age. I began my quest at an age when the New York times said, "god is dead". Christianity was not popular in the sixties, and eastern mysticism was. I was a Beatles fanatic. And mysticism appealed to me. There was a mystery about it. It was attractive. For one, I wanted to enjoy free sex, and drugs, and was not a particularly moral person in regards to pleasure. I just wasn't very successful at being as immoral as I had hoped to become.
2) I thought all Christians were hypocrites. And I had a great deal of bitterness at churches for investing in "Statues and Stained Glass" while I saw hungry people. In my eyes, people were of much more value than buildings. And if they "Christians" practiced a religion of love, they would forget about buildings and feed the poor. So, I was an extreme idealist.
I mocked Christians, avoided Christians, and the last thing I ever wanted was to become one. So please let me say, I did not believe in Christianity.
Do you know how culturally strange it was to live near a boardwalk, and watch people standing around in summer dressed in black suits, singing "Bringing in the Sheaves!" and handing out Bible tracts!
Did that appeal to me? I wouldn't talk to them and made fun of them. No, it was just the opposite.
For one, I did not like Christians that I knew. And most Christians that I knew were only cultural Christians who sinned 6 days, confessed one day, and went to church on Sunday. And most of them eventually went to church twice a year.
I had hoped that if there was a God, that I would find him in Hinduism rather than in Christianity! For one, I had hormones and cursed like a truck driver. I was poor, and stole from the local stores. I figured that if there was a God, he wouldn't accept me anyway.
The second reason is that I hung out with normal people. The idea that someone's God would make them dress up in black suits in the middle of the summer and hand out Bible Tracks, didn't appeal to me, because to me that was space alien behavior. I'd never be able to look at my druggie friends again if I did such a thing. And my friends were all I had in this world. No, I knew how they would look at me if I did that.
So, when I even began to ponder that there may be a spiritual world and a god, I was not aiming to the local church.
I began my search looking at Hinduism. Then Islam, and then Judaism. And when I narrowed down between Islam and Judaism, my mother thought I was a lunatic, because I stopped eating pork for about 2 years.
And all of this time, I was still an evolutionist. I was not a Biblical Literist. Or what people call a fundamentalist.
So, what soured me to evolutionist theory? Scientific evidence, not a desire to prove a religion to be true.
It really isn't fair to me to assume that I was looking to prove the religion of our culture was "the true religion" when at the time I dispised it, really knowing nothing about it.
I didn't go to church as a kid. I wasn't indoctrinated. My mother was a divorced single parent and shunned in her church. Actually I didn't live with my mother until about 5 years old anyway. But she didn't preach religion. I didn't know if she believed in God. We didn't have a Bible in our house.
When I finally did begin to come to conclusions, I was actually afraid. Because I didn't want to be like "Christians" as I knew them. And I had a dreaded fear that if Christianity was true, that I'd end up on the board walk with a black suit and tie singing bringing in the sheaves.
Now, I must say this, because it is important. There are tons of Christians who believe in God and believe in evolution. And I'm not out there trying to convert them! I'm not here trying to convert evolutionists. If you or anyone else doesn't agree with me, I'm not upset. That is why I tried not to talk about evolution in the first place. Otherwise I could go to creationist boards and cut and paste all day long, and say, "Well, what about this or that?"
So, I have settled the issue in my own mind. And I don't really feel compelled to try to convince you that you are wrong.
And I will end on this note. I really don't know everything. There are things I can't explain. And I will say there are just as many holes in evolutionist theories. But it does not change the fact that I respect people with differing ideas, and don't discredit their objectivity whether they are Christian, Atheist, Muslim, Hindu, Animist or Agnostic.
From a scientific perspective, I do not look down upon someone who does not see what I see. If they want to know about my journey, and what changed "my" mind, then I tell them. But not to convert them. I see people as being on their own journey in life. I am just a witness to what I have seen.
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Tue Oct 21 12:26:44)
|
|
Fair enough. Reading the last paragraph of my post, I can see why you took it personally, but it wasn't intended that way. It was meant in a more general way - meaning that people tend to adopt the religion that is most prevalent where they are from. I should not have said "you", but rather people in general.
Islam, Hinduism, etc. are not so common in western culture. Christianity is, and a significant portion of our culture has evolved as a result of Christianity. It therefore seems natural that people living within it would turn to Christianity for answers rather than the other religions.
As for Christianity, one problem I have with it is that it is, by definition, not tolerant of other beliefs. It states pretty clearly that there is only one path to salvation, and that is through Christ. So, anybody not believing is outright wrong. It can't be both ways. I realize that there are Christians who believe in their own interpretation of it, but this seems rather convenient to me (i.e. let's take what we like about it and discard the rest).
My point is that I don't know the answers, and that I don't think anybody else does either. I appreciate aspects of many religions, but the only thing I can count on is what I can do for myself and others. I make decisions, and do what I do for this lifetime, focusing on doing what is right. I make mistakes, and hopefully learn from them. I don't do anything because it may affect how I'm judged by a being I can't possibly understand, and how it may affect what happens after I die.
Evolution may not be the answer. It probably isn't, as we understand it today. There are no doubt answers yet to be found, but it seems a plausible explanation, in some form, according to what we understand about science. I still don't think it precludes the idea of a Creator.
|
|
|
I've heard some Christians say "yeah, the nonbelievers are going to hell", and others say "God has a plan for everyone". I don't think anybody can know the ultimate mind of God. I personally don't believe God would send Ghandi to limbo. In fact, I don't know what the eternal hereafter even necessarily means.
I feel we all naturally have a certain amount of faith. We have faith that the world we live in is real and consistent. We have faith that we can discover that world. We also know that there are multiple dimensions in the same world, multiple ways of approaching and looking at it. Faith doesn't mean you have to assert knowledge that you do not have, it can mean that you are willing to approach ultimate truth with a spiritual mind as well as a rational one. That you are willing to see what the collective wisdom of the ages says about the universe, especially since all cultures have so much spirituality in common.
In a lesser way, we acknowledge the multiple dimensions in the day-to-day world. For example, in a forest, our rationality sees its natural place in the ecosystem; with our mind's eye we see the creative possibilities of molding wood; with our eye for beauty (what is that?) - we see its amazing complexity and chaos - and yet order and balance; while with our spiritual sense (not completely defined!) we feel a certain peace and inspiration.
I believe even Tolkien would appreciate that!
"O calm, dishonourable, vile submission!"
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Tue Oct 21 14:42:13)
|
|
Lace, I fully see and appreciate the spiritual aspect of Christianity. Indeed, some of the people I appreciate most are Christians. I don't have a problem with any of that. But I also know some damn fine people with their own brand of spirituality, that I think would jive quite well with that.
It's the details that bug me. There is a hypocrisy in the fundamental aspects of it that I can't get past, and taken literally, there is a sort of persecution towards others that irritates me.
Beyond that, Christians think they should be able to talk about God and Christianity, but when someone questions God's existence, they are somehow denigrating their beliefs. Why is it that expressing beliefs other than Christianity is considered slamming Christianity? Is this any different than professing God's will and Christianity to someone who believes otherwise?
Mostly what bugs me is that when presented with arguments that they cannot rebuke, many Christians will fall back on the old "faith" argument. I know you don't do this, and that you reasonably assess things, and in fact have a high degree of knowledge regarding the historical facts involved, and I think you also must understand what I'm saying.
|
|
|
| UPDATED Tue Oct 21 16:00:30 |
This message has been deleted by the poster
|
|
|
| by -
lacedemonians
(Tue Oct 21 16:06:39)
|
|
| UPDATED Tue Oct 21 17:48:39 |
Beyond that, Christians think they should be able to talk about God and Christianity, but when someone questions God's existence, they are somehow denigrating their beliefs. Why is it that expressing beliefs other than Christianity is considered slamming Christianity? Is this any different than professing God's will and Christianity to someone who believes otherwise?
I think the reason many Christians express irritation at the notion God doesn't exist is it just does not jibe with their lives. I've met many Christians who felt that God had personally touched or effected change for them. If you go to a 12-step program (which are wonderful and successful), you will find that they are centered about the belief in "a higher power". The subject isn’t just an intellectual mind game for many. It would be comparable to somebody telling you that you don’t exist or that your parents aren't really yours. Some Christians will not even engage in discussions of this sort. So it is a highly charged emotionally issue. I have found that if religious people are approached respectfully, they are more open minded than they are often given credit for.
Beyond that, there is some traditional hostility between the religions. Judaism grew up surrounded by powerful Pagan enemies. Much of the reason the Jews exist today is because they formulated a strong sense of identity and exclusiveness versus outsiders. How many other recognizable cultures from those days still exist? Egyptians (not Arabs), Assyrians, Babylonians, Hittites, Phoenicians, Macedonians, Romans? All gone!
Of course this tradition was carried on in the enmity between Christendom and Islam - who, let's be real, are still rivals.
After I read Edith Hamilton's book "The Greek Way", which directly compared Greek spirituality and mores with the Jewish ones, I began to understand that there was much in common but different approaches to revealed truth. The Greeks even had a concept of God as a singular entity (as did the Jews of course) but expounded upon the idea with literature rather than dogma. However, the problem with paganism is it really isn't about God as an Ultimate but God as natural and psychological forces. I believe that the main reason paganism was so easily supplanted by Christianity in the Roman world and Europe was because it simply did not resonate as true.
continued next post
"O calm, dishonourable, vile submission!"
|
|
|
| by -
lacedemonians
(Tue Oct 21 17:27:48)
|
|
| UPDATED Tue Oct 21 17:52:31 |
continued from previous post
Mostly what bugs me is that when presented with arguments that they cannot rebuke, many Christians will fall back on the old "faith" argument. I know you don't do this, and that you reasonably assess things, and in fact have a high degree of knowledge regarding the historical facts involved, and I think you also must understand what I'm saying.
Well, honestly, faith is kind of what it comes down to. After all, we are on this Earth for a short time, how much can we really understand before we are gone? The Universe is at least 16 billion years old and contains countless galaxies and stars and appears larger, stranger, and more complex the more it is investigated. How old do we get - about 75 years? How much of the universe do we get to see - perhaps travel to Europe and South America? It seems that there is much we don't/can't know, except that it is amazing that the universe and ourselves are even possible. Doesn't it seem more likely that there should be nothing at all or at best a few random hydrogen atoms? But given that we are here and that the universe is as amazing as it is - it doesn't seem unreasonable to contemplate an Ultimate force. From that standpoint, I am willing to read what other minds have to say on the subject.
Conversely, if there is no ultimate force or higher power, and Creation is just a strange anomaly of Ultimate Physics, then that does bring some interesting questions to mind. Firstly, given that simple explanations tend to be correct, it seems likely that Ultimate Reality must consist of infinities of universes, and ours appears fantastic only because only in a fantastic universe with perfect physics could beings arise such as us. There must be an Eternity whose nature is completely beyond anything we could ever hope to ascertain no matter what technology we devise because our own universe forever binds us. Even within our own universe, space, time, and matter must have come about in some fashion – or be eternal in some way. Our very sense of free will seems very likely to be an illusion because how are we really any different from other material things like rocks, bugs, and plants? It seems we are back to talking about faith again.
"O calm, dishonourable, vile submission!"
|
|
|
This is an interesting subject. And I think that the one hump that no one can get over is that we can all reach up as much as we want, but if no one reaches down, we can never know anything.
All of our arguments are really presumptions, even if they are ingenious ones.
So, here is the one thing that I think is difficult for all of us to accept, our minds are limited in what they can understand.
So, we introduce a new concept, "Divine Revelation". And I don't want to cheapen the term, because many people claim to have revelations. Some are just psychotic. Others may have been in a hysterical state. And given that there is a spiritual realm it is possible that there are also lying spirits.
So, my question is this? Do we take a cynical approach to the possibility that God may have spoken or may even still speak? Or do we look at the evidence around these claims that God has spoken to man, or revealed himself to man?
One day it dawned on me that there must be a god? And more things happened that I will not discuss here. But I pretty much took a leap of faith once and said, "God if you are real, you will have to show me?"
Again, I won't speak of the circumstances around that question or even the results.
Then after coming to believe that there was a god/God. I then prayed something like this, "There are so many religions and so many people claiming that you said this or that. And I don't know what to believe. I don't want to be decieved and believe a lie. So please show me who you are. If you are in all religions I want to know that, and if you aren't then help me to know that as well."
Either there is a spiritual world/realm or there is not. I just wanted to know if it was possible to actually "know" something as opposed to "think" something. I say that you can know that you know that you know that God is real. Why? Because God has the power to show us.
|
|
|
Either there is a spiritual world/realm or there is not. I just wanted to know if it was possible to actually "know" something as opposed to "think" something. I say that you can know that you know that you know that God is real. Why? Because God has the power to show us.
You and many others wonder the same way sir!
Perhaps there are just certain ways of knowing that are not easily demonstrated. What else can be said?
"O calm, dishonourable, vile submission!"
|
|
|
This message has been deleted by the poster
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Tue Oct 21 21:04:35)
|
|
Lace, you have my respect. We have different beliefs, but I respect how you came to your beliefs, and you make me think.
|
|
|
Thank you, I respect your beliefs also which you have expressed very eloquently - and you have been more than reasonable and open minded about listening to my thoughts.
I have a great amount of sympathy for skepticism. I feel I have feet in both camps. I also have skepticism though for my own finite wisdom, knowledge, and experience.
"O calm, dishonourable, vile submission!"
|
|
|
| by -
BB-15
(Sun Oct 19 12:39:47)
|
|
| UPDATED Sun Oct 19 22:53:14 |
Hi Nate;
"There are common threads in religion. And everybody roots for their own team.
IMHO I am not rooting for any "team" except maybe for Tolkien. I try very hard in my discussions to focus on Tolkien's creation and his beliefs about his myth.
I think you can tell that I support the view that Tolkien's myth as a whole can be applied in various ways to different world cultures and religions. (Does the Tolkien myth have a bias? Sure, and I touch upon this at the end of my post.) That is my conclusion, but I think it is based upon the texts of his myth, and his interpretation in his letters and essays.
"So Tolkien may well have said and wrote things that I will call incidental inspiration. He may not have been aware of exactly what the reader would see in it, because it was never intended."
This is a broad statement and IMHO confuses the technique of the myth with his interpretation of the entire myth.
I agree that Tolkien can give many different interpretations about events and characters in his myth (Orcs). This is a technique showing the myth's complexity.
* However, the philosophical basis of the myth as written by Tolkien (in his famous letter to Milton Waldman, 1951) is clear to me at least;
1. The Tolkien myth is not a story of any one religion
"Myth and fairy-story must, as all art, reflect and contain in solution elements of moral and religious truth (or error), but not explicit, not in the known form of the primary 'real' world."
2. The Tolkien myth has influences of ancient myths and legends which contain "truth".
"These tales are 'new', they are not directly derived from other myths and legends, but they must inevitably contain a large measure of ancient wide-spread motives or elements. After all, I believe that legends and myths are largely made of truth, and indeed present aspect of it that can only be received in this mode"
For instance as an example of this "truth" the concept of the "fall".
"There cannot be any 'story' without a fall"
But this "fall" in Tolkien's story is not the story of the dominant religion of England, Christianity. As he said previously; " not in the known form of the primary 'real' world."
"In the cosmology there is a fall: a fall of Angels we should say. Though quite different in form, of course, to that of Christian myth."
* Back to the original topic of the discussion. Can the Iluvatar/Valar/Maiar be looked at from both a monotheistic and polytheistic point of view?
The duality of perception about the Valar is in Tolkien's conception of them. Again from the Waldman letter;
1. the partially monotheistic viewpoint
"the Valar (or powers; Englished as gods) are revealed. These latter are as we should say angelic powers, whose function is to exercise delegated authority in the their spheres (of rule and government, not creation, making or re-making). They are 'divine', that is, were originally 'outside' and existed 'before' the making of the world.
2. the partially polytheistic viewpoint
"this is, of course, meant to provide beings of the same order of beauty, power, and majesty as the 'gods' of higher mythology, which can yet be accepted - well, shall we say baldly, by a mind that believes in the Blessed Trinity."
* Now the Tolkien myth does have a main bias, it is one that is acceptable for England and it has a focus mostly on the myths and legends of Northern Europe. It's origin was the result of the creation of languages and the creation of characters to speak those languages. I can elaborate on that if necessary also. But not on this post.
TO SUM IT UP; Of course anyone can apply an interpretation onto Tolkien's myth that reflects their own religion. That is their privilege. Though in a Tolkien message Board what Tolkien said about his myth is almost always going to (by some) be mentioned and supported.
If I have offended anyone with my comments, that was not my intention.
Thanks for your well written post. I've enjoyed the exchange.
Have a good one, BB ;-)
it's just in my humble opinion - IMHO -
|
|
|
Obviously, your post is the reason for this site. It is in fact not to debate religion outside of Tolkien's sphere, but to understand it. If it inspires people to look further than that, wonderful. There's nothing quite like thinking.
And so, it is refreshing for you to introduce these referrences. These discussions must have been going on for over thirty years I suppose.
I like anything that causes me to think. And I hope people enjoy my posts in that same light. I do not present anything as any type of infallible truth, but a statement that opens up room for discussion.
Some people here may have gone around this circle over and over again, and therefore have ready quotes at their finger tips. I'm certainly not one of them, and so I hope those people enjoy teaching the new generation of Tolkien lovers.
|
|
|
| by -
BB-15
(Sun Oct 19 21:42:26)
|
|
Hi again Nate; As you said;
"Some people here may have gone around this circle over and over again, and therefore have ready quotes at their finger tips...These discussions must have been going on for over thirty years I suppose. "
Not for 30 years! LOL. Yes, the discussions began right after FOTR was released. I think all of our Tolkien knowledge has improved immensely because of the LOTR Boards.
"I hope those people enjoy teaching the new generation of Tolkien lovers."
The regulars on these LOTR Boards, almost all of them more than me, through what I believe is a labor of caring, have spent many hours the past 3 years sharing Tolkien knowledge.
As for me, I really enjoy discussing Tolkien's philosophy and the method of creating myth and the profound ideas in his stories. And that of course includes discussing these ideas with you Nate.
Take care, BB ;-)
it's just in my humble opinion - IMHO -
|
|
|
BB-15, point in issue that, is Tolkien the kind of human nature professor that you would take advise from? or are in way trying to extend the realm of Tolkien's creation. After all he is not produsing new material anymore.
- sometimes thinking...
|
|
|
The_Consigliere, thank you for the answer i was looking for. This messageboard with it's on- and off-topic thoughts gave me lot to think about... for a change.
sorry, about the clumsy posting. Haven't really done this before :P~~
- sometimes thinking...
|
|
|
| by -
BB-15
(Mon Oct 20 00:16:08)
|
|
Hi bleistar;
"is Tolkien the kind of human nature professor that you would take advise from?"
IMHO the main subject of this thread is not to take advice from Tolkien. The main subject has been to discuss and learn about religious concepts (nature of God and gods; good and evil).
"are in way trying to extend the realm of Tolkien's creation."
Not much in this thread. Tolkien wrote about almost everything discussed here.
" After all he is not produsing new material anymore."
True, but there are a lot of dead writers that might give us knowledge. All of the world is influenced by those who have lived before us in one way or another. The question is; do any of our no longer living fellow human beings actions and accomplishments have any value to us?
Have a good one, BB ;-)
it's just in my humble opinion - IMHO -
|
|
|
Actually you are right. These boards are a brand new creature and make this possible.
But I meant on a local book club level as far as people getting together to talk Tolkien for the past 30 years.
|
|
|
I was debating furiously with myself whether to reply to this post or not. Temptation finally won over my wish to pass my exams. So here we go…
"Iluvatar sat and hearkened, and for a great while it seemed good to him, for in the music there were no flaws. But as the theme progressed, it came into the heart of Melkor to interweave matters of his own imagining that were not in accord with the theme of Iluvatar" (Sil. p. 16)
I also felt that this statement gave off the impression that Ilùvatar did not know about Melkor. However it is not explicitly stated. I know the words “not in accord with the theme of Ilùvatar” makes it sound like Melkor is going against what Ilùvatar originally intended. However “the theme of Ilùvatar” as used in this context is the theme that he explained to the Ainur and this is not the complete theme as Tolkien explicitly states elsewhere.
My task is to prove that only a monotheistic interpretation is possible. You have proven that the above statement is open to interpretation. However this is not enough to prove that the entire book is similarly liberal.
Lets look at the other statement that you have quoted and show that that statement explicitly shows monotheism and is in fact not open to polytheistic interpretation.
"But Eru could not enter wholly into the world and its history, which is, however great, only a finite Drama. He must as Author always remain 'outside' the Drama, even though that Drama depends on His design and His will for it beginning and continuance, in every detail and moment." - Morgoth's Ring: Athrabeth Finrod Ah Andreth"
You say that this statement implies that God does not control the world. I cannot see how this is so. All this is saying that God cannot become a character in the events. The words: “that Drama depends on His design and His will for its beginning and continuance in every detail and moment” shows absolute control.
The reason why God cannot be part of the drama is because he has complete control over everything and it would simply an exercise in self-applause. God is meant to above the trappings of ego (maybe).
"nor can any alter the music in my despite"
This by itself would have been open to interpretation but in the light of the previous statement it is not. The ‘music’ in this instance encompasses “every detail and moment”.
"even if Morgoth broke the supreme ban against making other 'rational' creatures like Elves or Men." Letter #153
This quote from outside its context seems like a self-contradiction by Tolkien.
I have not yet read this letter I probably wont be able to for another six weeks. I am really sorry about this copout but I really don’t have the time at present. I will be back in six weeks. I hope you will still be here then as I sincerely appreciate all your posts, in this thread and elsewhere.
MC:We're both part of the same hypocrisy, senator, but never think it applies to my family.
|
|
|
Despite what I said earlier I went on and read letter #153 anyway.
This (unsent) draft letter is written to Paul Hastings who has read the LotR and was asking the same questions we are asking in this thread. However one must realise that the Silmarillion and all the information about the Primary Creation is not available to Hastings at the time and this letter was written with that in mind. In reading this letter we may only be able to apply is to the world of LotR by itself and not the entire Tolkien universe, which only became apparent to the public after the publication of Silmarillion. So when reading this letter we do not yet know if the beings of the universe have Positive Freedom or not. I think Tolkien takes this into account when he is writing it. A shame that he stopped just when it was getting interesting.
Having established that as a highly disputable qualifier lets get on to what he actually says.
“Free Will is derivative, and is therefore only operative within providing circumstances; but in order that it may exist, it is necessary that the Author should guarantee it.” What he is saying here is that there is only Negative Freedom. Positive Freedom is yet again stated as denied.
“So in this myth, it is ‘feigned’ that He gave special ‘sub-creative’ powers to certain is His highest created beings.”
Why did Tolkien create this ‘feigned’ Free Will (Negative Freedom in Isiah Berlin’s words)? Taking it from the top: Tolkien did endow Eru with absolute power. Eru is in control of everything. Now Tolkien is left with a dilemma. How can he create a story in which one of his characters has absolute control? There is no conflict. The exit is the ‘feigned’ Free Will mentioned above. This works because Eru is not an ordinary character, He is not prevalent in the stories other than at the start, but most importantly it works because we, nor Men, nor Elves, nor Ainur know the entirety of His Plan.
Now even if Melkor did create the orcs, which he didn’t, this ‘sub-creation’ is done under the context of ‘feigned freedom’ illustrated above.
Also in this letter he says that “[Valar] are only created spirits – of high angelic order we should say…reverend, therefore, but not worshipful.”
There is no ambiguity in the above statements. If there is another statement that explicitly states a polytheistic model then Tolkien will be self-contradicting and our argument about interpretation will be irrelevant because of inconsistency on the part of the author.
As to the matter of the Hindu ‘Gods’; The problem that comes with the different interpretations of Hinduism is that terminology that is used in the context of one interpretation is carried over, incorrectly and commonly, to another interpretation. In the polytheistic interpretation there are more than one God. In the monotheistic interpretation the other deities remain but they are no longer Gods with a capital G. Also Tolkien was mainly concerned with Western and Abrahamic religions. Therefore I think it would be more valid to bring up comparisons to the way the Holy Trinity is interpreted. Again I would like to keep these comparisons to real religions to a minimum.
Tolkien says that rules established in the imaginary universe are not open to debate by anyone other than the author. Our task is to find out exactly what those rules are. Interpretations only arise out of ambiguity or inherent contradictions. I think that monotheism is the only interpretation because of there is no ambiguity in relation to this matter. Even if there is such ambiguity in a certain statement there are others that do away with it leaving the overall position unambiguous.
Important Note: For those wondering about Nate and Lacedemonian’s comments that follow, they are about a previous version that I had accidentally posted. I only updated this a long time after they had already replied.
MC:We're both part of the same hypocrisy, senator, but never think it applies to my family.
|
|
|
Rules in Tolkien's universe: They are not open to debate insofar as we cannot tell Tolkien what he intended. They are only open to debate from the perspective of what interest they spark in us and what we read into them.
What is the joy of a book whether it is fiction or fact? It speaks to us.
We are never reading from the purist motive: What does the author intend to say? We read from the perspective, "What does the author say to me?" or in some cases, "How can I apply this to my own life? How can I make it relevant for me?"
This is true in every field, except when we are forced to read something at the demand of a college professor.
We read popular science because we are curious about the future. We read whatever interests us.
It is human nature to search. And so we search for things whether we intend to or not. We look past the words. If the author doesn't mention the color of the eyes, we still picture eyes. If he does not mention whether the hair is straight or curly, that doesn't stop us from getting a mental picture.
So, if we read about Tolkien's Universe, we can't avoid debate if we ever talk about it. Because we all have a different picture. And in some way, civil debating is like sandpaper, it ultimately helps to refine our vision of the whole.
|
|
|
So, if we read about Tolkien's Universe, we can't avoid debate if we ever talk about it. Because we all have a different picture. And in some way, civil debating is like sandpaper, it ultimately helps to refine our vision of the whole.
That's it! In the thrust and parry of debate sometimes the truth is pricked!
"O calm, dishonourable, vile submission!"
|
|
|
And this is why human's need each other. We rub one another all the right ways.
|
|
|
Great post Athene!
I think you have something there about "Mind of God" versus "work in progress". Reading 19th century literature (such as "Les Miserables") you can see that intellectual thought by that time saw several ways to approach God - as a concept, i.e. "ultimate reality", or as an ideal of the way to live, "Christ", or the universe itself "Nature". Ultimately, there is always universal agreement among most Judeo/Christians that the mind of god can never be truly known. Hence, we have the scriptures to best approach knowing God as far as responsibility to Him and His intent toward us.
I like your analogy of the Logos with the Music of Tolkien (the ultimate force?). It seems clear that the ideas of the early Greeks that the universe was rational and consistent and that the divine itself was like man (hence human gods) and their mythology that attempted to describe the forces of nature and the human psyche led directly to natural philosophy, science, mathematics, etc.
I would even say that the "logos" led to Plato's theory of forms (you can see the natural ancestor of some of Plato even in Homer).
"All things were in chaos when mind arose and made order" – Anaxagoras (Greek philosopher about 500-428 BC)
"O calm, dishonourable, vile submission!"
|
|
|
I thought the following definition that I found in http://www.mythandculture.com/faq.html might be helpful:
"Mythology is the combination of 2 words in Greek - myth/muthos and logos. Logos is a Greek philosophical concept, presented by Heraclitus (500 bce) as the power of order in the world, a unifying force. Later Greek philosophers defined it as rational thought or argument. In Judeo-Christian traditions, it is also defined as The Word of God - again going back to this idea of a unify force or ordering principal in the world.
To combine the myth with the logos is to talk about the rational, organizing of story-telling creation. One cannot have mythology without the myth and myth-making potentialities or without the logos to study myths and myth-making." - Maggie Macary.
Any further information on the nature of Logos would be helpful for comparisions.
MC:We're both part of the same hypocrisy, senator, but never think it applies to my family.
|
|
|
This reminds me strongly of Genesis where God effected Creation by the power of His Word.
After the Jewish and Greek worlds came together, there was a strong reaction by religious Jews. Jews took Greek philosophical concepts and adapted them to their religious commentary. For example, the Mishnah adopted thousands of Greek words. Some Hellenized Jews wished to explain Jewish mystical tenets in philosophical terms. The most famous was Philo (a Hellenized Jew in Alexandria) who wrote on ethics, mysticism, Torah, and the nature of God, especially attempting to integrate Plato. Philo was concerned about the exact same subject we are discussing, namely the concept of Logos and its relationship to spiritual force. He may have influenced Saint Paul.
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/p/philo.htm
"O calm, dishonourable, vile submission!"
|
|
|
I rarely run into people who have so much information? If you don't teach, then you should.
How do I turn on the clapping dot people? You know those little things that people use to add a visual to their messages?
|
|
|
| by -
CTS-1
(Fri Oct 17 17:54:43)
|
|
Hi, Everyone:
I have been reading "Morgoth's Ring" of late. One think about that book which is of some relevance to this conversation is the changes in linguistic terms Tolkien used over time.
In early drafts of Valaquenta and Annals of Aman, the Valar are referred to as "Gods" or "the Gods." As Tolkien's vision evolved, the references to Valar as "Gods" were amended out. From this detail, one may infer that Tolkien originally designed a polytheistic universe, in keeping with the Old Norse Sagas. However, as his thoughts turned to ironing out the internal inconsistencies in his mythology, Tolkien gradually moved more to a monotheistic model, with the Valar as subordinates reflecting the will of Iluvatar.
Look- it's trying to think!
|
|
|
Thanks for the information CTS-1.
I was waiting for someone bring up the argument that Valar means ‘God’. I think you've pre-empted this.
MC:We're both part of the same hypocrisy, senator, but never think it applies to my family.
|
|
|
Very articulate, interesting and insightful post, Consigliere.
I haven't read all of the Sil but I did read the first two chapters so I could get a basic grasp of what you were saying.
"The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step."
|
|
|
The first two chapters are really all you need to join in the discussion Trinity.
Are you a matrix fan? (This may seem like a stupid question but i met a guy called Neo and he hated the matrix)
MC:We're both part of the same hypocrisy, senator, but never think it applies to my family.
|
|
|
Oops, I just looked at my copy of the Sil and I have to make a quick change because I made a mistake. I've read the Ainulindale, the Valaquenta and started ch 1 (Of the Beginning of Days) before I stopped and decided to start from the beginning in terms of the order in which the books were written(with the Hobbit, etc.). One thing I will say, is that being a Christian, and having read the New Testament many times and still forging through the entire Old Testament, I think that enhanced my understanding of how Tolkien set up the creation of his world.
Yes, I am a definite Matrix fan, even before I was a LOTR fan.
"The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step."
|
|
|
I am not really familiar with many aspects of the Christian religion. I have to rely on what other people tell me about it, so my original argument here is not really about Christianity in Tolkien but just simply that Tolkien’s universe is monotheistic.
I am glad to see that you are a Matrix fan. I have a few ideas that I may need your help with. So please don’t go away. I promise it will be interesting.
I am still struggling with how to write out my thoughts as they are all jumbled up in my head. I will definitely a few posts for you by tomorrow arvo (its 2 am here in Sydney).
MC:We're both part of the same hypocrisy, senator, but never think it applies to my family.
|
|
|
I am not really familiar with many aspects of the Christian religion. I have to rely on what other people tell me about it, so my original argument here is not really about Christianity in Tolkien but just simply that Tolkien’s universe is monotheistic.
I realize that. My referencing my beliefs in regard to my easier understanding in regard to some aspects of the Sil was an aside.
"The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step."
|
|
|
MC:We're both part of the same hypocrisy, senator, but never think it applies to my family.
|
|
|
Nice post, consig, very fascinating and persuasive.
Just for fun, I wonder if Tolkien's universe could also be seen in a more non-theistic way, at least for us who tend to be agnostic. After all, these creation myths are meant to be interpretive of the great forces of the universe that are beyond human comprehension.
In that sense, Eru could be seen as the great source of energy and harmony in the cosmos -- the dance, or song -- of energy patterns at play. You could call Eru the all-encompassing energy field of compassion, where all is connected.
Melkor, of course, is the discordant tone, the part of the universal compassion field that has forgotten its roots. It is ego, and its energy has turned inward toward itself, a condition that causes pain and suffering to itself and to all those around it in the dancing field of energy.
But in the end, Melkor only has one choice -- to either overcome the confusion of ego and rejoin the great dance, or eventually dissolve into void.
Why one person turns toward ego and away from the great dance of the universe is THE great mystery. One idea -- if you interpret Tolkien's story as an inner journey -- is that compassion (love) and ego (narcissism) are always at battle within the Self.
Is it possible that those who turn toward ego are "meant" to be guide posts to remind other beings to remain in the dance of energy and not turn toward the void?
That would explain some things ...
Forget Aragorn. Vote for General Clark!
|
|
|
In replying to your post going to try to remain strictly to what Tolkien explicitly states and what we can directly deduce (not infer) from these statements.
#1 I wonder if Tolkien's universe could also be seen in a more non-theistic way, at least for us who tend to be agnostic.
I don’t believe an atheistic (non-theistic) interpretation is possible. But I can see an agnostic aspect in Tolkien’s universe.
Atheistic Interpretation?
From how I interpreted your post; you are saying that Tolkien’s universe may be non-theistic because Eru is in fact a representation of a “the great source of energy and harmony in the cosmos -- the dance, or song -- of energy patterns at play. You could call Eru the all-encompassing energy field of compassion, where all is connected.”
Actually there is something Tolkien’s universe that represents this source of energy and that is the 'Imperishable Flame'. This is a mysterious force that is not very well explained in the books but to me this is really the representation of your primordial dance.
Eru is the God. He is the rational consciousness that is the be-all and end-all of the universe. He existed before the Imperishable Flame. There was nothing before him. Since Eru is definitely not a representation for an irrational force we cannot say that Tolkien’s universe is non-theistic.
Agnosticism
An agnostic is a person who feels that nothing is known, or can be known about existence or nature of anything beyond the material phenomenon. I wanted to stick the definition because although you have a very good point, it is being obscured by your use of that term.
Basically agnosticism says that you can deduce what you can from natural phenomenon. You can deduce the existence of gravity, because you see its effect. But you cannot deduce the exact nature of gravity. Is this force a result of particle interaction of is it a form of energy or is it both? You cannot deduce that unless you have a way of getting physical evidence.
Tolkien does say that there are parts of the universe and its destiny that is not known and cannot be know even to the Ainur:
“The Ainur know much of what was, and is, and is to come, and few things are unseen by them. Yet some things there are that they cannot see, neither alone or taking counsel together; for to none but himself has Ilùvatar revealed all that he has in store, and in every age there come forth things that are new and have no foretelling, for they do not proceed from the past.” – Ainulindalë
Not all agnostics are atheists. Some can see the logic of a Rational Creative Force from the ordered existence of the universe. The atheist sees see the logic of an Irrational Creative Force (or no creative force at all) from the chaotic nature of the universe. The role and purpose of this Force is ….wait for it…wait for it….
MC:We're both part of the same hypocrisy, senator, but never think it applies to my family.
|
|
|
Hello, I've never seen your name before, and probably since I've rarely come to this board.
I think Agnostics can look at rings, and get a great deal out of it from the perspective that many of the spiritual beings also reflect human qualities. And therefore it is a great story on the nature of humans.
I would suspect that Agnostics wouldn't generally have any problem with Tolkien's universe, in that it is theoretical even if it reflects other theologies. And in essence, Agnostics tend to look at theoretical possibilities if I am not mistaken?
|
|
|
Okay then, let me amend the word agnostic to "non-theistic."
In a nontheistic religion, like Buddhism, you could still play with the mythologies and theories of Tolkien very easily, without having to buy into the concept of a mysterious cloud being presiding over the universe.
In fact, I believe someone seriously into the awareness practice of Buddhism would find that the world we live in -- if unfiltered by unconscious and habitual mindset -- would look very much like Tolkien's Middle Earth!
I think that concept worries us a lot, thus our cultural fascination with products of the ego rather than the life of the spiritual.
Think of the Shire folk if they were addicted to television and shopping malls and that's the point I'm making. The fascination with Tolkien's story for many people, I think, is that it gives them a brief glimpse into the real world of energy and spirit ...
... the world that storytellers and religions try to represent with their various creation myths. While I enjoy their creativity, they're really just acting as mirrors to a world that already exists.
I bet I've gone off-topic, huh?
Forget Aragorn. Vote for General Clark!
|
|
|
I do believe that tolkien was a christian, but even tolkien himself said that lotr was justa fairy tale and didn't have to do w religion
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Sat Oct 18 08:49:04)
|
|
From Tolkien's letters:
"The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like `religion', to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism."
|
|
|
Tbis discussion is on another board, and I'm probably going to have to rethink my position again. I defended this view, and then I was convinced I was wrong.
Is it that Tolkien had to work this out for himself, because some other quotes would make you believe otherwise?
|
|
|
If that doesn't answer I don't know what will.
"The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step."
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Sat Oct 18 17:54:53)
|
|
That's right. He wanted it to contain fundamental aspects of Christianity, but not the dogma - not the particulars. It isn't really about theology, but about values.
|
|
|
This message has been deleted by the poster
|
|
|
| by -
CTS-1
(Sat Oct 18 16:51:40)
|
|
| UPDATED Sat Oct 18 16:51:59 |
Tolkien said that his work was not an allegory for anything. Tolkien disdained allegory as channelling the reader into one interpretation. That does not mean that there may not be an underlying religious (in this case Catholic) context.
Look- it's trying to think!
|
|
|
This all confused me as well. But I think it depends on when he said what?
Because in a way, he may have done a double take when he went back and looked at his own works, because I think he set out to revise it at least once.
So, maybe he had an epiphany, and the quote about his purpose was earlier. He realized he said more than he actually said, and then commented on it.
Sort of accidental inspiration. "Gee, did I really say that?" Like John Lennon when he realized Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, spelled LSD. He actually went back and looked at other song names to see if they spelled anything.
|
|
|
Nate-skate said in reply to your post that Tolkien “may have done a double take when he went back and looked at his own works, because I think he set out to revise it at least once.”
I believe Nate is talking about what he said in the letter to Milton Waldman [131]. Please refer to the following post for details: http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0167260/board/thread/3479302?d=3508141#3508141
MC:We're both part of the same hypocrisy, senator, but never think it applies to my family.
|
|
|
This is the first in the series of three posts. In the third and concluding post I will consider the implications to my conclusion that Tolkien’s universe is monotheistic. I will also address the main contentions to that conclusion. So please bear with me.
Isiah Berlin’s “Dual Liberties”
Freedom can be either positive or negative.
Negative Freedom; is achieved when we are free to do what we want, we are able to make choices as our nature permits us. If a person want to run in an open field and we put him in jail this would be denying their negative freedom. In western democratic countries, most adults enjoy a large degree of negative freedom.
Positive Freedom: is achieved when the ‘will’ is free from all other elements of the universe. In the real world positive freedom rarely exists. People are bound by human nature and social constraints that dictate the choices we make. Lets say I want to go and buy that flashy new Ferrari. No one is stopping me. I have the money. I have the negative freedom to buy it. So I go out and buy this car. I believe that I have made a choice. But this choice is an illusion. Social constraints and norms have dictated my choice. I have been denied positive freedom. Essentially positive freedom is when I believe that I have a choice but in fact I really don’t. The choice that I made is superficial.
Melkor is denied Positive Freedom
Melkor chooses to create his own music and be the controller of his own destiny. His pride makes him believe that he also has the power to choose his fate that is separate from the Great Design. He believes he has positive freedom. So he starts to create music of his own. He believes that he has created something that is not predetermined by Eru. However as Eru reveals later, Melkor had no such freedom. The path that he chose was actually chosen for him by his architect: “And thou, Melkor shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempted this shall prove mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined. – The Silmarillion; “Ainulindalë”.
In Tolkien’s universe, no one other than Eru has positive freedom. Everyone has a preordained purpose and their actions are mapped out by Eru. This is why he is God and he is the only God.
MC:We're both part of the same hypocrisy, senator, but never think it applies to my family.
|
|
|
There are spoilers below, so if you haven’t seen the Matrix Reloaded yet you definitely shouldn’t read on. This is one movie that you do not want ruined.
Humans in the Matrix are denied Positive Freedom
The following information was obtained from http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0234215/board/thread/2895651?d=2895651#2895651. It is an excellent analysis by Jay Cost on how the dual liberties theory explains the matrix completely. I have only outlined the relevant points and the parts where I differ from his explanation.
“What the [architects of the matrix] recognized is that part of human nature is the need to feel like one makes a choice, even if there is no choice to be made at all…The matrix is best understood as a medium in which humans interact and, in the words of Agent Smith, “just (live) out their lives.” It is a perfect medium if and only if it does not interfere with what human beings would do in the real world, if it does not interfere with people living out their lives according to their own nature, if it does not violate negative liberty.
“There are natural elements of mankind that the system does not account for; for those whose individual nature possesses large portions of these elements, the system is vicious and violent to them. They feel more “natural” when, like the kid in The Animatrix, they are asleep. The matrix for them is truly a prison of the mind. It gets in the way of them being themselves; thus, they are forced to reject the Matrix” and escape to Zion.
Melkor and Neo
I have established how Melkor is denied positive freedom in Dual Liberties 1: Melkor is Denied. Now how is this parallel to Neo’s situation?
The flaws in the Matrix becomes integrated under a single differential. As the Architect chooses to put it: “as the sum of a remainder of an unbalanced equation inherent to the programming of the Matrix.” This integral is actually more or less predictably “systemic”. The first one million (or whatever number) people linked to the matrix will be linked correctly but the one million and onth person will be incorrectly connected. This person is no different from any other. He is human in every way, but his linking to the Matrix is faulty. This is why there have been five of Ones before Neo.
What the Architect has to do is to reintegrate this differential (for the purpose of brevity I won’t go into the more compelling reasons but check out Jay Costs’ post). This integration is achieved by entering the Source and ‘temporarily disseminating’ the code of the integral. The code is the nature, or inherent programming, of the One.
Neo believes that he is going against the Matrix as he attempts to fulfil the Oracle’s prophesy. But the prophecy and the Oracle are simply mechanisms that are set in place to ensnare the One to his predetermined destiny without denying his negative freedom.
Of course the difference between Neo and Melkor is that one is motivated by love and pity while the other is driven by impatience, pride and hatred.
MC:We're both part of the same hypocrisy, senator, but never think it applies to my family.
|
|
|
The Ultimate Freedom
Picture a large circular path. There is the only one way to get in and out and it is both the end and beginning of the circle. You are standing at this single entrance. However the way ahead is hidden by mist and you cannot know where the path is leading.
The architect of this path stands beside you and offers you a choice. I can either take a right turn, or the left turn. I believe that I have choice because I do not realise that both my choices will lead to the same place.
I have already explained positive and negative freedoms in my previous two posts but the situation described above is slightly more complicated.
Nature is the inherent coding that is programmed into us by God. Social conditioning is programming that is progressively coded into us as we interact in society. In the real world both of these dictate our decisions and thus it is not possible to have positive freedom.
But let us fantasise for a moment. You are standing at the entrance of that circular path and there is nothing compelling you to take a left or a right. From where you stand the two paths look exactly the same. There are no pretty flowers inducing you to take the right path and your mother-in-law isn’t blocking your way to the left. You have absolute freedom.
Unfortunately the path is circular. Your destiny is already predetermined. But your choices aren’t. Lets call this the denial of Ultimate Freedom, just to differentiate between the other two.
To give credit where credit is due the above situation was derived from the different interpretations of Christianity as outlined by Nate-skate in the post titled Re: Melkor and Satan: http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0167261/board/thread/3758331?d=3770789#3770789
Now what kind of freedom is there in Tolkien’s universe? Aule (the poster of Valar-like wisdom) stated that
“They do have a will of their own and they did lend their voices to the music of the Ainur. Manwe did make decisions, and he sometimes consulted Ilùvatar. Aulë created the dwarves against the will of Ilùvatar. Melkor's discord was not a part of Ilùvatar’s will, but Ilùvatar countered Melkor's discord with the second music. They certainly weren't puppets.”
Aule and the Dwarves
The creation of the Dwarves is an excellent point. Thanks for forcing me to address this as I foolishly avoided that episode in coming to my conclusion. How could Aulë create the dwarves against the will of Ilùvatar?
“Now Ilùvatar knew what was done in the very hour that Aulë’s work was complete..” There seems to be an implication that Eru may not have known about Aulë’s doings previously. This contradicts his omniscient nature as previously established by Tolkien. Is this a mistake by Tolkien?
Does Aulë have the power to do his own thang? This is what Ilùvatar has to say about that: “Why doest thou attempt a thing that thou knowest is beyond thy power and thy authority? For thou hast from me as a gift the power of thy being only, and no more.” And he goes on to say that the Dwarves will not have a will free of their own and Aulë has to command all their actions. But Ilùvatar later forgives him and gives free will to the Dwarves. [1]
Aulë definitely has Negative Freedom. He may or may not have Positive Freedom. He definitely does not have Ultimate Freedom.
Defining God
So the debate whether Eru is a puppeteer hinges on this; do the other beings of the Universe; Ainur, Elves, Men, Dwarves, Hobbits, Orcs etc have Positive Freedom.
But most importantly, in terms of the purpose of this thread, does it effect the argument that Tolkien’s Universe is monotheistic? It is my contention that is doesn’t. No one except Eru has the Ultimate Freedom.
Aule, Athene and others who hold the view that Tolkien’s universe is open to a polytheistic interpretation say that the Ainur are Gods. They are Gods because they hold have negative freedom and positive freedom. They are Gods because they carry out the plan of Ilùvatar, he is the composer and they are his orchestra.
How is this different from humans and elves? Elves and Humans all carry out the will of Eru. Humans are no less puppets than the Ainur. If anything Humans in fact have even greater freedom than the Ainur.
We cannot define Gods by their abilities. Compared to Humans the Elves have incredible power. And compared to the lesser beings of the universe, Humans have themselves have tremendous power.
End-notes
[1]The thought of Tolkien is incredible here. This idea of freedom and free will operates in many different amazing modes and motifs. There is also the issue of Melkor corrupting elves into Orcs because he cannot create life of his own.
MC:We're both part of the same hypocrisy, senator, but never think it applies to my family.
|
|
|
The question is broadened again. Does anyone or anything have ultimate freedom? Is God bound to anything. And that is really a question that has two answers. 1) Yes 2) He is only bound to himself, and cannot deny his own nature. Therefore God cannot be both good and evil. He cannot be truth, and tell lies. So on and so forth. If he limits himself, then isn't God free to break his own rules? (Never mind, this gets way too deep)
But concerning us mortals and free will.
Free will is a gift to creatures who have boundaries. We cannot go past our boundaries, but we are free within our boundaries.
We are not free to turn into horses. We are not free to take away another person's freedom.
So, the concept of Ultimate freedom only happens in the imagination. I am not free to be the most handsome man on earth. Wouldn't mind a few enhancments though!
God sets specific boundaries for all things. And we operate within those boundaries. We are free especially in the option to love or not to love. We can reject God. We can reject others. We are free to act and behave badly. But then again, there are built in consequences to behaviors.
But mostly, I think the greatest choices are the choices to love, to show mercy, to be tender hearted, to be kind, to help others. We can change a small part of our world though those choices. Or we can choose to ignor people, hate people, be nasty, and have a negative impact on a small part of our world. On some level, those may seem like small choices, but if you make the difference in one person's life, that isn't as small as one might think.
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Sun Oct 19 04:54:11)
|
|
I always perceived Eru's plan as involving many destinies, some of them more determined than others. In other words, Eru knew everything that could happen, but not necessarily what would happen. The people of Middle Earth had free will because they were afforded the ability and right to make their own choices, thus affecting their destinies. If a choice must always lead to the same destiny, then it is not really free will.
Now, obviously there are major themes, such as Melkor's destiny. Eru's plan would no doubt ultimately direct things toward his defeat, but the destinies of the people involved would be many fold. Melkor would therefore have less freedom than any other being where his ultimate fate is concerned. However, isn't it possible that there were other possibilities for Melkor at the outset? Perhaps his choices early on narrowed the scope of his freedom. Perhaps Eru had an entirely different set of possibilities for Melkor and Arda in general, had Melkor not waged war against the Valar.
I don't believe that freedom has much to do with divinity. If we think about the Greek gods: they each had their charges - i.e. responsibilities. In this sense, they were quite restricted. Their responsibilities were significant - far more significant than any responsibilities placed on humans. The Greek gods were not the ultimate creators, and yet they were gods.
The concept of God, in the Abrahamic sense, is very different from the concept of gods in the pantheons of many ancient mythologies. What constitutes divinity differs according to culture. If we look at Tolkien's universe from a Christian point of view, then the Ainur are not divine because they are not God. If we look at it from the perspective of someone living in ancient Greece, they would be. Therefore, Tolkien's world can be seen as both monotheistic and polytheistic, depending on the perspective.
Tolkien wrote:
"It is, I should say, a 'monotheistic but 'sub-creational' mythology.' There is no embodiment of the One, of God, who indeed remains remote, outside the World, and only directly accessible to the Valar or Rulers. These take the place of the 'gods', but are created spirits...."
Tolkien's point of view was that of a Christian, but he was creating a mythology in keeping with the mythologies of northern Europe, wherein gods existed. Being a Christian, and attempting to keep his cosmogony consonant with this - he altered the terminology slightly. He originally referred to the Valar as gods, but backed off from it slightly. Whether they are called gods or not is irrelevant. It is how they are perceived that matters. He walked a fine line between monotheism and polytheism in his universe.
His use of the term 'sub-creational' is interesting. To me, this indicates a sort of aquiescence with the various belief systems that predated that of the Abrahamic God. In other words, this is what was believed before we had "knowledge" of the one God. If you think about it, our world is monotheistic no matter what, if you are looking at it from a Christian perspective. It doesn't matter what religion or mythology you are looking at because there is but one God. Even if you believe that Zeus existed, he couldn't have been a god. Again, it depends on perspective.
|
|
|
I have posts on various threads that agree with much that you are saying.
The question of Melkor's freedom depends on the reader more than what Tolkien said.
And this brings up the age old question. If God is good, then why does he allow evil? Why doesn't he just destroy the devil, and stop all of the evil and injustice and sickness in the world?
I wrestled with this question for years. Does Tolkien's god simply tollerate Melkor, because unwittingly Melkor is just as useful as an evil agent as he was as a good agent?
And it begets a second question. We know from cultural stories that angels were both beautiful and powerful, with abilities that we do not have. And therefore, we always looked at angels as a "Higher Species".
But we don't comprehend two things. How did man appear pre-fall, before sin and death were introduced to the world. The second thing we can't comprehend is what man would have appeared like had he eaten from the tree of life rather than the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. For the O.T and N.T both speak of the glorified body.
In other words, if angels were not the crown of creation, then men were. Men were created in God's image. Satan (the most beautiful angel) fell because he wanted to be "like" God. Men were freely given what Satan/Melkor wanted to steal, and this explains why he was bent on corrupting humans. He wanted to turn them into orcs. He didn't want them to retain any of the image of the maker.
So, if men are the crown of creation. The bride of God so to speak. Then man's love had to be fully tested. And not just any man, but every man. The first man failed the test. And every subsequent generation must pass the test. Do they follow Eru's plan, or Melkor's plan.
Free will always exists, except for Melkor. Why? Because he is doomed already. Now he is a puppet. How? He is the final test for mankind. Either through seduction or intimidation, his goal is to turn men away from Eru. And now, following Eru is not some easy task.
Following Eru requires a difficult choice. Take up a ring and follow.
And so, we have a world full of sickness, evil, and suffering. But we also have signs that Eru is good. Animal instincts, the stars, the beauty of the most intelligently designed machine ever created with billions of working parts, "The human body".
Melkor wants to take away freedom. But he also wants to make the world angry at Eru.
Even in Tolkien's story, Mankind is the biggest variable. Will they fight? Will they attempt to steal the ring and be corrupted by it.
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Sun Oct 19 09:46:05)
|
|
A while back, I did a thread called "The Nature of Evil", wherein we discussed much of this. Two other people started offshoot threads from this. I think they were lost, but the original Nature of Evil thread has been archived by Sinaes, along with many other good discussions. You can find them here:
http://ringnuts2.bravehost.com/
|
|
|
Thanks for the website.
I've noticed a greater concept, "Never type when you are tired." I looked back at my post and if it wasn't so pathetic, I'd laugh.
|
|
|
| by -
BB-15
(Sun Oct 19 22:44:58)
|
|
| UPDATED Sun Oct 19 22:51:26 |
Hi again Nate;
Free will always exists, except for Melkor. Why? Because he is doomed already. Now he is a puppet. How? He is the final test for mankind. Either through seduction or intimidation, his goal is to turn men away from Eru. And now, following Eru is not some easy task.
Interesting. My take about Eru's (Iluvatar/God) plan or Melkor's plan is that they are not on the same level. Eru is good as a basic part of Eru's nature. Melkor however, is evil by choice. This must be this way. If Melkor has no free will because of Eru/Iluvatar's command, then that makes God in the myth the source of evil which IMHO was not Tolkien's intention.
Two examples from the myth illustrate that evil is a free will choice even by Melkor and Sauron.
1. Melkor chooses evil;
"For it came to pass that Melkor… completed his bondage… At length, as Manwe had promised, he was brought again before the thrones of the Valar. Then he looked upon their glory and their bliss, and envy was in his heart; he looked upon the Children of Iluvatar… and hatred filled him; he looked upon the wealth of bright gems, and he lusted for them; but he hid his thoughts, and postponed his vengeance… Melkor abased himself at the feet of Manwe and sued for pardon" "Silmarillion: Of Feanor"
Choices upon choices, Melkor always had these.
2. Sauron's dilemma and his road back to evil;
"When Thangorodrim was broken and Morgoth overthrown, Sauron put on his fair hue again and did obeisance to Eonwe… and abjured all his evil deeds. And some hold that this was not at first falsely done, but that Saruon in truth repented… But it was not within the power of Eonwe to pardon those of his own order, and he commanded Sauron to return to Aman and there receive the judgement of Manwe. Then Sauron was ashamed, and he was unwilling to return in humiliation and to receive from the Valar a sentence… of long servitude in proof of his good faith… Therefore when Eonwe departed he hid himself in Middle-earth; and he fell back into evil, for the bonds that Morgoth had laid upon him were very strong". "Silmarillion: Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age"
There is a free will element in the actions of Sauron and Melkor/Morgoth up to the end.
Have a good one, BB ;-)
it's just in my humble opinion - IMHO -
|
|
|
| by -
Nate-skate
(Mon Oct 20 18:15:32)
|
|
| UPDATED Mon Oct 20 18:20:33 |
Here is what I meant by Melkor losing his free will.
Melkor had free will. He was every bit as free as every other creature. And he was free to offer music, or not to.
He had free will until he became corrupt. Once he became corrupt, he was now doomed to be what he had become. His nature was now what it was, evil and twisted.
Eru is wise, He can use the deeds of the good and he also has powerful enough to turn the deeds of the evil against them.
This is the great question for all of mankind. Why does evil exist? If Eru was powerful enough to kill Melkor, which he is. Why didn't he? And I say it's because Melkor served his purposes despite the fact that he was now evil.
Eru would rather Melkor didn't become evil. And he was free to not become evil.
Does God/Eru use SatanMelkor or does Eru compet with Melkor, leaving the outcome in the hands of men/elves/dwarves and hobbits? The greater is never at the mercy of the lesser. And the question is this, what good comes from the existence of evil???
If we all must pass our test as Frodo, Aragorn, and Gandalf, Boromir, oh and Galadrial, had to pass a test. Then there must be something that challenges us. If we did not have the option to choose evil, then what would be the merrit in doing good?
If a woman chooses to love a man because that is her only option, because there are no other men to choose from, then her love can be false. But if she comes into a room of a thousand men, and then chooses the man, then her love for him was tested. She chose him above all others.
We can choose anger, lust, arrogance. We can choose all of the pleasures of the world. But if man chooses Eru freely, then he says, "I see good in this world, therefore, Eru is good. I choose the way of Eru." Melkor made the choice harder, but in doing so, he made it more real and more precious.
|
|
|
I don't believe evil is simply rebellion or self serving pride or not doing good - though, it can involve those things.
I don't fully understand it but I know there is such a thing as evil. I don't know if it is purely psychological but it definitely involves psychology. On the one hand it is chosen, but on the other hand some people seem so steeped in evil that it is impossible to imagine them any other way - think, Hitler, Charlie Manson, Ted Bundy, etc.
I can tell you one thing - there is definitely a sense people can have for the bad in a person - twice in my life I can remember my gut screaming at me about a person when there was nothing obviously wrong with them. Both times, it turned out my gut was 1000% correct. I've known other people who have had the same experience. I've learned to pay attention to other people's intuitions as well as my own.
What is almost as bad as evil, is all the regular people who go along with evil for the sake of expediency. I believe most people are like this. The rare few who are not are likely the only reason God doesn't erase the slate and start over.
"O calm, dishonourable, vile submission!"
|
|
|
I always perceived Eru's plan as involving many destinies, some of them more determined than others. In other words, Eru knew everything that could happen, but not necessarily what would happen. The people of Middle Earth had free will because they were afforded the ability and right to make their own choices, thus affecting their destinies. If a choice must always lead to the same destiny, then it is not really free will.
Does freedom of choice have to be absolute in order for it to represent true free will? If your choice cannot alter your destiny, does that invalidate your choice from the perspective of free will? I’ve always thought of Eru’s plan very much in the terms that you describe above – a view of intentional self-limitation on the part of Eru which would afford the inhabitants of Arda free will. However, my view incorporated unconsciously the assumption that any one choice would lead to a destiny different from any other one. The last line of your paragraph makes me consider an alternative.
In a way, I’m curious to know why there is such an obsession with free will under circumstances where we do not know the way in which the story ends, or even unfolds. We have, at least, the impression of absolute free will and this seems to be countered chiefly by our theoretical musings of whether or not there is an ultimate controlling force which predetermines our actions according to its agenda.
If there is no ultimate controlling force, then it seems to follow that our actions and destinies must be within our control and free will must therefore exist. Whether or not we have the strength to exercise this free will is another issue. If there is an ultimate controlling force, what difference does it make to us if we do not know the future? We still have the impression of free will and must act accordingly.
The chief objection that I can think of – for me, at least – would relate to accountability. How can we be held accountable for the outcome of our actions if the result was predetermined? Well, if there is freedom of choice as to the route taken to the end result, then surely we could be held accountable for that? In other words, we are held accountable not for our actions but our motivations. We may not have absolute freedom when it comes to our ultimate destiny, but we have freedom as to the manner in which that will be played out and the motivation that drives us towards it.
The chief flaw with this would be a destiny that does not seem to allow for this kind of freedom as to motivation – if the kinslaying of the elves was predetermined, how could any motivation exist that would justify the action? For this reason, I’d probably incline more to the option you allude to in saying
Perhaps his choices early on narrowed the scope of his freedom.
namely, as I understand it, at some point, his freedom of choice was absolute, but that it became increasingly constrained as his subsequent choices led his down a path of decreasing possibilities.
Just an interesting thought that occurred.
"Go Bokke!"
|
|
|
This question is somewhat like ones we would debate upon in college, which is a long time ago for me.
If God gives free will, do we have the option to do whatever we want?
One of the biggest wrenches in the argument was the concept of scriptural prophecy, which is incorporated in many religions.
If you are familiar with prophecy, some are very direct and specific, while others are vague. But there is enough specifics, that you should be able to say with a certain level of confidence, "This either happened or it did not happen."
So, if God knows the absolute future, did he cause it to happen? Or did he allow it to happen. Or is it a mix?
Did God grant every living human on earth free will, but somehow God is not bound by time, and sees what choices we make, and then God reacts accordingly, and then in the end, as a grand Orchestra leader, causes all things to fit into His perfect will?
So in effect there is a specific plan, a permissive will, and the ability to allow things, but also to work around our choices to impact the final outcomes?
|
|
|
I think somewhere in the Silmarillion it says something along the lines of Melkor's power being weakened by his exertions in Middle Earth...Later this bears out when The Valar rise against him:It's Tulkas, a relatively weak Valar who defeats the Dark Lord "Wrestling him to the ground"
|
|
|
Hi Everyone
This is probably going to be my last post for a while. I have my exams approaching and I am far behind with all my units. I also work part-time at the Telstra Stadium and with the World Cup heating up I have less and less time to keep up, let alone reply to all these wonderful posts. Without singling-out anybody I want to sincerely thank everyone for posting in this thread as pretty much every post had great value. I fear that i wouldn't be doing them justice by responding without putting in the effort.
So I just have to leave this argument at the status of 'agreement to disagree'. But i promise I will be back after my exams are over (in 6 weeks) and I look forward to talking with all the ringnuts again.
So thank you and goodbye for now. See you all soon!
TC
MC:We're both part of the same hypocrisy, senator, but never think it applies to my family.
|
|
|
You are a great person, and I for one am glad that I met you.
|
|
|
Where do we start sorting here? It's fascinating.
End notes
[1] The Valar and Maiar are those of the Ainur who came down to Arda; the Earth
[2] Matrix fans; think back to Negative and Positive Freedoms.
[3] “Eä is the material universe” – The Silmarillion; ‘Index of Names’. This is actually not the entire universe as there is also Void. The Ainulindalë begins with the sentence “in the beginning there was Eru” so it is clear that Eru existed before the Void. Or they may have existed simultaneously. I think this Void simply represents vacuum; an absence of matter and energy. It is probably a contradiction in terms to say, “the Void existed”.
There is also mention of the Imperishable Flame. If anyone has any light to shed on this please do so. I have guessed that this is probably similar to Lucas’s the Force, a source of energy to all life. It may well be a part of Eru himself.
[4] Melkor here represents all those who believe that it is possible to go against the will of Eru. If Eru creates the universe and there is a purpose to this and we are all part of his great plan, how is it that we have free will? Anything we do is all part of his greater glory. The choice is really an illusion. And the reason for this is elusive (it is not a test) as Eru has not yet revealed what his purpose is, even to the Ainur.
And another note to Matrix fans; Trying to go against the system only to finally realise that he is in fact working for it; who does Melkor remind you of? Scary huh?
Actually I have my own concept of the Void, and actually mentioned it in my own story. What existed before the Universe? And what exists outside the Universe as we know it? This can only exist in our imaginations, because it is beyond our comprehension to know it.
|
|
|
I revisited this thread as a break from my uni work, and as I was going through some of these posts, I am reminded of the great complexities of Tolkien’s myth. The depth and conviction of the interpretations presented in this thread are so impressive that a simplistic conclusion will not do it any justice.
Although I am still sticking with my original position I have to make these following concessions:
#1 Aule and the Dwarves: Try to look at it under the context of ‘feigned Free Will’(outlined in letter #153[1]). Although Aulë thought he was doing something against the will of Ilùvatar, the Great Music had already envisioned this. Remember not all of the music was sung by the Ainur and so they could not know all its details. So why is this a point of contention?
The words “Ilùvatar knew what was done, and in the very hour that Aulë’s work was complete, and he was pleased, and began to instruct the Dwarves in the speech that was devised for them” leads to confusion. The redded and makes the previous and redundant and the sentence is grammatically wrong with its inclusion. Therefore one of the ands is a mistake and should be taken out.
If we take the blue one out; the resulting implication is that Ilùvatar only knew of the Dwarves ‘in the very hour Aulë’s work was complete” and not before then. This suggests that Ilùvatar may not be all powerful and this would contradict the monotheistic universe established previously.
If we take the red on out; the resulting implication is that “Ilùvatar knew what was done” period. He was pleased and instructed the Dwarves with the speech that he had devised, “in the very hour Aulë’s work was complete”. This would mean that everything was already planned and would confirm the monotheistic interpretation of the universe.
#2 Athene’s ‘Work in Progress’ perspective: I was initially reluctant to accept this view. The reason being that the perspective of a character within the universe should not be taken as correct interpretation. For example, Boromir was under the belief that the one ring should be used against the enemy and not destroyed. We wouldn’t take his view as a correct perspective. However the way Athene looks at it is at a very macrocosmic level. I think this perspective may become valid as an aggregate (I am not sure if I completely understood what you were saying Athene. I am doing some guess work here in interpreting your post. Correct me if my guesses are wrong).
[1] http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0167261/board/thread/3758331?d=3843707#3843707 : My comments on letter #153 as it deals with Free Will. Also the concluding words of that post wasn’t very clear: “As Tolkien himself says that rules established in the imaginary universe are not open to debate by anyone other than the creator.” I meant that although interpretations arising from ambiguity and contradictions are debatable, the rules established by the author of the book for his own private universe cannot be debated. What we are doing now is attempting to find out what those rules are.
What happened with this post was that I had two copies sitting on my computer and I accidentally posted the draft. I was wondering at Nate and Lacedemonians comments. My bad. I’ve just corrected the mistake. Sorry guys.
MC:We're both part of the same hypocrisy, senator, but never think it applies to my family.
|
|
|
Hello Mr C, it's nice to see you back at the helm.
The question regarding Iluvatar is interesting. I'm kind of surprised that there is a link between an All knowing God (Abrahamic) and monotheistic God.
The reason that I say this is that there are people of monotheistic belief that do not believe that God is all knowing and all powerful.
The Abrahamic religions believe that God created everything that was created. And this differs from Tolkiens Universe. For, God has co-creators in the Tolkien world.
In the Bible, Angels have various administrative assignments...etc. But I can't see where they are involved in the actual creative process??? Maybe someone else can show me a reference that can show me otherwise.
And so, I think Tolkien's whole concept of the creation is one that he merged various thoughts into a myth.
|
|
|
Nice to hear from you too Nate, but unfortunately I am nowhere near being at the helm. Exams are even closer and I am impossibly behind. I needed a break from accounting and finance so I came back here to review some of what had been said in this thread.
”I'm kind of surprised that there is a link between an All knowing God (Abrahamic) and monotheistic God.”
I was always under the impression that the Abrahamic religions, ie Judaism, Christianity and Islam, were all monotheistic (one God).
The reason that I say this is that there are people of monotheistic belief that do not believe that God is all knowing and all powerful.
I am fairly certain that the definition of monotheism is a doctrine of belief in only one God. This God may or may not be all-powerful but he usually has this degree of control. Whether He chooses to use this Power is up to interpretation. Some say He does some say He doesn’t.
The Abrahamic religions believe that God created everything that was created. And this differs from Tolkien’s Universe. For, God has co-creators in the Tolkien world.
True, but this does not make the Ainur Gods. They do have impressive abilities, but Elves have impressive abilities too, so why don’t we consider them Gods? Elves are also co-creators of the world, and so are Men, and Dwarves and every other being in the Tolkien universe. They all contribute in their own significant ways. Therefore we cannot define whether a being is God or not by their abilities. Also God did plan out everything in His thought. The Ainur were just carrying out this plan.
And so, I think Tolkien's whole concept of the creation is one that he merged various thoughts into a myth.
You are absolutely right here. I have always agreed that Tolkien has many influences and he incorporated many religions and mythologies. However he stoped short of making his universe polytheistic.
MC:We're both part of the same hypocrisy, senator, but never think it applies to my family.
|
|
|
I can tell you from a theological perspective that the Abrahamic God is all knowing, all powerful and omniscient (all over the place).
The reason that I say what I say regarding the differing views, is that there are factions within Christianity as there are factions within Islam, Judaism and Hinduism.
Some are considered "literalists" these take scriptures literally. Some are fundamentalist which are similar to the literalists. These believe that certain fundamental truths are indisputable.
And from there we get various shades which eclectically pick and choose what they want to believe. And others consider themselves Christian which in fact are cynics which doubt everything but the existance of God and Jesus Christ, and from there you have baptized people who by all definitions do not even believe in Christ and even doubt the existance of God, but consider themselve Christian because they have a membership in a Christian church by birth or by joining.
The definition of "Christian" is a major problem for the world, and it is one that invites debate within the churches.
Some see two distinct entities. Why? Because a large core of Christians believe that the definition of whether or not a person is truely a Christian is dictated by what they actually believe. And therefore at various times, Christians referred to themselves as "Believers" because these believed that you could only call yourself a Christian if you believed the core tenants of Christianity, that Jesus was the Christ (Jewish Messiah), that he died on a Cross for sins (to atone for the sins of all mankind) and that God (The Father) raised him up on the third day. (The Resurrection) Oh and a fourth tenant, that he will return as the reigning Jewish Messiah in the future from where he will rule the world. Christians call this the second coming. Jews in general don't believe that Jesus was the Christ, and so they are looking for a "first comming".
This is considered the bottom line of faith for these Christians. They consider that those who hold to these three principles as being their brothers and sisters in the faith. But even within those who hold to these three tenants, you still have divisions over whether the Bible is "The Inspired Word of God" or whether it is a compilation of spiritual stories. Within these groups you have creationists and evolutionists, liberals and conservatives. Not all Christians hold the Bible in high esteem. Others will defend it as being inspired from God, and believe that when someone attacks a Biblical truth, that they are attacking God himself.
And so, I was almost surprised to hear that you took for granted that Christians/Jews and Muslims saw eye to eye in terms of the all powerful God, when indeed there are deep divisions within the ranks of all three religions.
For the record, I do believe in an all powerful, all knowing and omniscient God. But you will find Christians who disagree. Obviously, I am not going to discuss the basis of my views, because if I do, then this opens this thread to religous arguments from people on all sides of the debate. And that really should be done on a religous board I think. As you know, religous arguments can turn ugly fast. And that shouldn't happen on this thread. It's a great thread with civil discussion.
|
|
|
| by -
sinaes
(Tue Nov 4 23:45:34)
|
|
I'm like a good haines t-shirt: tagless 
|
|
|
This message has been deleted by the poster
|
| |
| | |
company.
Advertise on IMDb.
License our content.
bravenet.com