# Free Will vs. Divine Intervention



## Strider97 (Mar 12, 2002)

> Harad: To resort to interventions from deities is the last result of people at the end of their logical rope. Even JRRT rejected active intervention from deities in his books, until there was no other hope. If you think the deities micromanaged decisions by the characters--Aragorn deciding to go East or West--then you have thrown free-will out the window.



Tolkien declared that the Lord of the Rings had a strong religious component. I wonder what his views were on divine intervention and free will. He gave Frodo free will during his quest. Frodo displayed free will (of a sort) when he chose not to destroy the ring. Was it divine intervention that spared Gollum to be there to fight for the ring, find it, bite the finger off and then miraculously fall into the chasm. When Gandalf decreed that many live who deserve death and many die that deserve life and asked who was to decide was he acknowledging a higher authority. When he decreed that Gollum may yet have a role to play was he acknowledging that we as humans have no idea what faces us in the masterplan. Being an atheist and a humanist I disagree with this philosopy but since we are discussing Tolkien and his work this is appropriate since he was such a devout Christian-

Harad- Sorry to start this under a new thread but I knew that you and Goro would respond and I did not want to change the direction of the other thread. Thanks for understanding, Strider.


----------



## Goro Shimura (Mar 13, 2002)

> *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 attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined.
> 
> Sauron creates the ring... the ring (as a seperate will-force) compells Gollum both to break his promise (through the addiction-lust) AND to fall in the crack of Doom... and incredibly...
> 
> ...


As I've posted elsewhere... Tolkien stands with the Orthodox Christian view that asserts that creation is good, that evil is the result of disobedience to God by either angels and men, and that God's will is accomplished in history in spite of this disobedience-- yet at the same time (even though its confusing) all creatures have free will to obey or disobey. A corollary to these assertions is that evil cannot create-- it can only twist and pervert. (This last idea is explicitly stated in both LotR and Sil!)


----------



## Strider97 (Mar 13, 2002)

Thanks,

So the free will that allows man to disobey and cause evil is part of the master plan (music) and will redound to accomplish God's (Illuvatar's) will. So either the master plan is very flexible or free will really does not exist. 

I agree that this is the central theme that led Tolkien to describe the LOTR as having a strong religious component. It is not finding God in the LOTR but finding the relationship between good and evil and prre vs. self determination.

I have to sign off for a few days but will catch up when I return. thanks, Strider.


----------



## Anarchist (Mar 13, 2002)

Well this is interesting. I believe that in LOTR, no divine intervention besides the wizards exists. It was plain coincidence that made Gollum be there when Frodo arrived in Mount Doom. As we can plainly see, Iluvatar is almost completely inactive after creating the world and it's beings. He does nothing but watching while dramatic events happen that he could prevent. I believe that LOTR shows the power of no-divine beings of solving their problems. At some point, even the Valars stop helping the people of ME. What characters in LOTR do, they do it byt free will. For example Frodo, who had a lot of times the choice to sto the quest but went on without until a point being forced to.


----------



## Roseberry (Mar 13, 2002)

> Anarchist: I believe that in LOTR, no divine intervention besides the wizards exists.


The only problem with that is that if you're dealing with the plot of a book, you have to go with what the author gives you. And Tolkien gives us a lot more than just the wizards, as we've been discussing over in the "Did Aragorn make the right choice" thread.


----------



## Anarchist (Mar 13, 2002)

I don't understand what you mean Roseberry. In LOTR wich is our issue here, neither Iluvatar nor the Valar help anybody in the quest. After some events in the Silmarillion, the Valar stoped communicating with Iluvatar's children. Only the wizards sent by Iluvatar (correct me if I am wrong) help Middle Earthians  in any way.


----------



## Roseberry (Mar 13, 2002)

I just mean that there are a lot of allusions to "powers" beyond the wizards, elves or anyone else - not specified, just implied. For example, one we've been citing a lot is when Gandalf tells Frodo that he was "meant" to find the Ring. Tolkien doesn't make it clear how that could be, probably purposely.


----------



## Merry (Mar 13, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Roseberry _
> * For example, one we've been citing a lot is when Gandalf tells Frodo that he was "meant" to find the Ring. Tolkien doesn't make it clear how that could be, probably purposely. *



That is very different from divine intervention, the ring wanted to be found and wanted to return to its maker, it was the rings power that drew it homewards bound, not the gods wanting the quest to be acheived. 

My own opinion is that free will determined the result of LOTR. For example, Aragorn grieves that all of his choices had been evil and that he had been unwise after taking leadership when Gandalf fell in Moria, surely not the attitude of a person influenced by god. The Valar would have just sat back and watched Sauron destroy all that was good. It may have moved them to punish him eventually but direct intervention seemed beyond their cares. 

There is nothing in the LOTR that makes me think (apart from the wizards) that the Valar took any note of M-E's problems.


----------



## Eonwe (Mar 13, 2002)

Why did Bilbo find the Ring?

Why did Gollum find the Ring? Why was Gollum involved in the end of the quest?

Why did Gandalf tell Thorin to take Bilbo on a trip to kill Smaug the dragon? How ridiculous is the premise of that trip?

Why did Gandalf suggest destroying the Ring by sending a hobbit into Mordor? How ridiculous is the premise of that trip?

The story is full of coincidences, as Bilbo calls it "luck" and constant prodding from Gandalf, a direct emissary of the Valar to do things, sometimes completely bereft of logic with slim chance of success.

See especially the conversation between Gandalf and Gimli in the chapter "Quest for Erebor" in UT.


----------



## HLGStrider (Mar 13, 2002)

> Well this is interesting. I believe that in LOTR, no divine intervention besides the wizards exists. It was plain coincidence that made Gollum be there when Frodo arrived in Mount Doom. As we can plainly see, Iluvatar is almost completely inactive after creating the world and it's beings.



That depends on your outlook. Do you believe in coincidences? Personally I don't. I believe that everything, down to the falling of the 'lowliest sparrow' is planned towards some greater end. Why couldn't it be the same in Tolkiens world? In fact, since Tolkien was a Christian and undoubtalby had similar believes, it probably is. 

I think it would be sad to believe in no god or an inactive one. What purposes would there be? I've always believed that in all things "God works for the good of those who love Him". Tolkien did too.


----------



## Roseberry (Mar 14, 2002)

Definitely, since we're dealing with Tolkien's world, we have to come at it from Tolkien's point of view. And he was a Christian, and for him, nothing happened without purpose and plan.


----------



## Merry (Mar 14, 2002)

I must protest at the fact that everyone seems to know Tolkien personally and knew how his mind worked and knew why he wrote the way he did.

Lets try and deal with the facts!


----------



## Merry (Mar 14, 2002)

That sounded far too grumpy....

I forgot to say please!


----------



## Quercus (Mar 14, 2002)

I'm a little confused here! Does this mean that Devine Intervention drowned Frodo's parents so that he would end up becomming Bilbo's heir? How cruel!


Note to Strider97: Frodo displayed free will when he took the ring to Mt. Doom, it was the ring that conquered Frodo's will when he chose not to destroy it.


----------



## Harad (Mar 14, 2002)

Amen (hah!) to Merry's thoughts about speaking for JRRT. Many people knee-jerked for example that JRRT didnt believe in evolution because...When I asked in a thread for ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE, I got:


ZERO.


----------



## Landroval (Mar 14, 2002)

> _Originally posted by HLGStrider _
> *
> 
> That depends on your outlook. Do you believe in coincidences? Personally I don't. I believe that everything, down to the falling of the 'lowliest sparrow' is planned towards some greater end. Why couldn't it be the same in Tolkiens world? In fact, since Tolkien was a Christian and undoubtalby had similar believes, it probably is.
> ...



If EVERYTHING is planned as you say, then no matter how evil I may be, I have no guilt because I am controlled by another (higher) power. In fact, the concept of evil does not exist in such a philosophy.

To me it is sad to believe in an active God that allows evil to work as it does.

I agree with Merry and Harad. We should try not to peer into the mind of JRRT (at least not speak for him), and stick instead to his written words.

Just my opinion.


----------



## Eonwe (Mar 14, 2002)

HAHA! Well in the words of Aragorn, there are other powers at work here far stronger.

What powers? Note its plural. The Ring and what?


----------



## Merry (Mar 14, 2002)

OK then, please explain:

Why did Isildur not destroy the ring the first time round when standing on the crack of Mount Doom IF the Valar were helping? Why did the war of the ring last so long if divine intervention was working on the side of the good guys?

Why did Frodo and Sam suffer little/no food and water throughout their journey? Surely the Valar would have provided?!

The whole saga seems devoid of spiritual backing and it was the strength of men, elves, dwarves, hobbits and the wizards that beat the dark lord.


----------



## Eonwe (Mar 14, 2002)

BTW Merry I am not trying to be a jerk, I like your posts, so please don't get mad at me. I just disagree with you on the Valar not having any intervention OK?

I'll answer your questions, when you answer the ones I wrote before... 



> _Originally posted by Eonwe _
> *Why did Bilbo find the Ring?
> 
> Why did Gollum find the Ring? Why was Gollum involved in the end of the quest?
> ...


----------



## Merry (Mar 14, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Eonwe _
> *BTW Merry I am not trying to be a jerk, I like your posts, so please don't get mad at me. I just disagree with you on the Valar not having any intervention OK?
> 
> 
> *



Hey don't be silly Eonwe, that is the fun of these forums! I only get mad if people start making personal remarks about others. If you disagree with me, tell me so!  

But I am right......


----------



## Merry (Mar 14, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Eonwe _
> *Why did Bilbo find the Ring?
> 
> Why did Gollum find the Ring? Why was Gollum involved in the end of the quest?
> ...





The ring wanted to be found, it wanted to return to its master - not the work of the Valar 


He was bound to it, his life was dependant on it - just like the oath of Feanor bound the Noldor. 



You could argue that this was a strange request of Bilbo and I have no real answer to it. 



No other choice, remember he wanted Elrond to guard it at first!! The hobbit idea was the only solution.


----------



## Eonwe (Mar 14, 2002)

ok now that we are straight on things 

Asking Elrond to guard the Ring was really only in the movie. They toy with the idea in the CoE. Gandalf from the beginning in the book says it must be destroyed, to do what Isildur should have done.

If you bring up the oath of Feanor, then we are talking about the Valar and Illuvatar...

Let's keep it simple though. So in your answers, we must at least say that Gandalf had something to do with all of this. And Gandalf is from, hmm let me see, where is Gandalf from? And what is Gandalf?


----------



## Merry (Mar 14, 2002)

Ah but you could also argue that Eru created Elves, Men and Hobbits that overthrew Sauron so Eru must have been involved!!

Weak point!


----------



## Eonwe (Mar 14, 2002)

Not a weak point, THE point 

Again lets start at the easy part:

Gandalf is an Istari. The Istari were sent by the Valar to help the free peoples of ME defeat the arising evil in the Third Age.

Gandalf is involved intimately with the details of the quest, leading the Fellowship, getting the support of Rohan, etc. As the Mouth of Sauron says, ever hatching plots at a distance.

Gandalf was originally a Maia, made to wear flesh and become like the people of ME.

Wouldn't you say the Valar are involved?


----------



## Merry (Mar 14, 2002)

OK, I agree that they were involved! But they did not supply constant divine intervention. They gave Gandalf to the others then sat back and watched them nearly fail.

I do not beleive that the luck they had was from the Valar.


----------



## Eonwe (Mar 14, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Merry _
> *OK then, please explain:
> 
> Why did Isildur not destroy the ring the first time round when standing on the crack of Mount Doom IF the Valar were helping? Why did the war of the ring last so long if divine intervention was working on the side of the good guys?
> ...



A great analysis. And important points.

The only way I can explain it is to go all the way back in the Silmarillion, where the Valar decide to bring all the elves to Aman. And Mandos says "So it is doomed". They did exactly what you are saying they should have done in the third age. They tried to bring them all to a safe place where they could protect them and provide everything they required. The point is that they cannot completely protect the elves from evil, and eventually it causes the death of the trees, the kinslaying, etc. Melkor is still able to cause evil.

It all goes back to the thread Melkor evil by will or nature, and other threads that try to explain why Illuvatar puts evil in the world, why he makes people suffer etc.


----------



## Harad (Mar 14, 2002)

Merry is right. Its a weak point by Eonwe. All of creation was the responsibility of Eru. But do the Valar or Maia talk to Eru? No we dont know of this. Direct actions of the Vala fall off and disappear by the Third Age. Indirect actions by Maia, Elves, or Men are all that is left.


----------



## HLGStrider (Mar 15, 2002)

> I'm a little confused here! Does this mean that Devine Intervention drowned Frodo's parents so that he would end up becomming Bilbo's heir? How cruel!



A lot of cruel things happen in the world, most are caused by man, some by what we call nature. All are part of a higher plan. 

Maybe I didn't make myself totally clear, I believe humans can make choices and that the choices have some affect. I also believe God knows exactly what choices we are going to make. 

Well, what would've happened if Frodo's parents had not died? 

Take for instance (Really corny example, but it serves the purpose) the plot for command and Conquer Red Alert.

The scientists go back in time and assasinate Hitler before he comes into power. Really great. No holocost. No WWII. Everyone's happy? No, Russians take over instead... I haven't seen the game, but I think it works out just as bad if not worse. 

You can't change one thing without changing the world. It's like using Balefire in the Circle of Time Books. 

Harad, you really started a discussion on whether or not Tolkien believed in Evolution? Why? He wasn't writing a religious book, or an evangelical one, so of course he didn't state his case on the subject, so what's the point? Making a couple Creationist squirm? It is likely that he did not, because he was a Christian and most likely believed the Biblical account. It is possible that he did because educated people were supposed to believe it at that time. We hadn't punched as many holes in it as we have now. Either way, it doesn't make a difference. Tolkien isn't God and probably held some beliefs that were false.

Anyway, where was I? 

Death isn't as bad as people make it out to be. Immortalitiy would be torture on this earth. Sometimes good comes out of bad that we never would forsee, so why shouldn't a good God be behind it?


----------



## HLGStrider (Mar 15, 2002)

What would the point be to higher powers if they just made a universe and then sat back and watched?

The Valar intervened in the Silmarilion a bit more obviously. Take the case of Tuor, who actually saw one of them. It was Tuor, wasn't it?


----------



## HLGStrider (Mar 16, 2002)

Been doing some thinking...

I'm fairly young, and not much a theologian, but I guess there would have to be some sort of free will or there wouldn't be any right or wrong, just a sort of strange chance... Anyway, can we judge Tolkien's world by the real world? 

In the real world God made the world.
In ME Iluvatar made Valar, Valar made world with his help.

Real world, Man was given a choice and chose wrong causing evil and all that.
ME: There were two or three rebellions against Higher power, Melkors, which could go with the fall of Lucifer, but I am sure there are other legends that are very similar. Then the elves rebelled a bit, but I can't remember the direct details. Then the Numenoreans Rebelled. Both times the result wasn't the start of evil. 

Real World: We were sent a savior who gave us another choice, He died for our sins, and now we have the option of being saved or not.
ME: There is no direct parallel. I am not sure if there is a Heaven and Hell, or a precise guideline for getting there.

In other words, it isn't earth, it isn't a Christian society, nor does it have any direct paralells to other religions that I know of. It is it's own mythology.... I guess everyone knew that though...


----------



## Harad (Mar 17, 2002)

> Harad, you really started a discussion on whether or not Tolkien believed in Evolution? Why? He wasn't writing a religious book, or an evangelical one, so of course he didn't state his case on the subject, so what's the point? Making a couple Creationist squirm? It is likely that he did not, because he was a Christian and most likely believed the Biblical account. It is possible that he did because educated people were supposed to believe it at that time. We hadn't punched as many holes in it as we have now. Either way, it doesn't make a difference. Tolkien isn't God and probably held some beliefs that were false.



HLGS:
Please give as many opinions as you like on LOTR.

On the subject of evolution: You agreed that we shouldnt put words into JRRT's mouth. Yet you do here. Since many people made the same unsubstantiated claim that you have, I asked for proof. THERE WAS NONE.

There are "no holes in evolution." It is the most detailed and well-established theory in the biological sciences. The only things opposing it are not science at all, but the differing creation myths in the various religions of the world. I suggest that you dont make such a wild assertion on evolution without a particle of evidence. As opposed to LOTR where any wild-eyed theory is possible, evolution is a product of the scientific method: tested and found to be in accord with reality.


----------



## HLGStrider (Mar 17, 2002)

Harad, dear, I did not make any arguement what so ever. If you look back you will find I just said it was pointless because he could have or could not have, and it didn't matter.

1. Evolution holds something came from nothing.

2. It holds life comes from nonlife.

3. It holds that mutations, which never come to good can come to good.

4. It has absolutely no proof in the fossil record or anywhere else, and as someone who once wanted to be a geologist, I did a lot of research on this.

5. It holds that the world is millions of billions of years old, which is hard to proove.

6. Where Creationism is impossible to proove Evolution is too, and if we are going to force one people to learn Evolution, we ought to show other things too.

7. The evolution HYPOTHESIS (It is not a theory. You have to have more proof than that to have a theory. I learned the scientific method in 8th grade) goes against Catastrophism, clinging to the outdated view of Uniformitarianism.

8. Evolution is a malicious idea which was used to support racism and genocide over the ages, along with several selective breeding of human programs... etc... Of course, religions have been turned to ill purposes as well, but at least they offer some hope...

I don't think I am educated enough to go against you on this subject, but I have read a lot of good books about it. In other words, I yeild to a man who is probably at least twice my age, but do not change my opinion in the slighest. It was still a silly thing to do, not at all relevent to this forum.


----------



## Harad (Mar 17, 2002)

> _Originally posted by HLGStrider _


Sweet young HLGS, who is running out of excuses. Your litany of "reasons" sounds like schooling gone terribly wrong:



> 1. Evolution holds something came from nothing.



It certainly does not. Evolution is a theory of how life evolves. Therefore one form of life from another. The origin of life from non-life is a separate investigation of science. If you want to talk about the origin of the universe itself, that is contained in another topic called cosmology.



> 2. It holds life comes from nonlife.



So does the myth of "creationism" young HLGS, since before life there was non-life.



> 3. It holds that mutations, which never come to good can come to good.



From where do you get this statement? Mutations are changes that are neither good nor evil. They can be useful to the organism by aiding its survival or not useful.



> 4. It has absolutely no proof in the fossil record or anywhere else, and as someone who once wanted to be a geologist, I did a lot of research on this.



The fossil record is nothing but proof of evolution. Dinosaurs which are extinct have many of the same characteristic as birds for example, showing the unity of life on earth. Extinct species of mammals, birds, reptiles, are a full record of changes over millenia.



> 5. It holds that the world is millions of billions of years old, which is hard to proove.



Only hard to prove to someone with a closed mind to science=reality. Radioactive dating of all kinds shows the same picture of an Earth and solar system that is ~4 billion years old. Carbon 14 analyses that goes on in hundreds of scientific laboratories over the world is itself sensitive to ages up to 60000 years, whereas other more long-lived elements go much farther back. Do you discount all of nuclear physics too? Astronomy measures the lifetimes of stars and galaxies as > 10 billion years, all using scientific methods, that are open to criticism and discarded when they dont fit the facts.



> 6. Where Creationism is impossible to proove Evolution is too, and if we are going to force one people to learn Evolution, we ought to show other things too.



"creationism" is not impossible to prove. Its not even in the running for proof. It has as much chance as being proven as any other aspect of religion, which as you should know, can only be taken on faith. Every religion has its own "creationism." Evolution like every scientific theory is only as successful as its ability to explain facts. Evolution, like special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, E=mc2, etc. are all SUCCESSFUL theories, because there explain all known facts.



> 7. The evolution HYPOTHESIS (It is not a theory. You have to have more proof than that to have a theory. I learned the scientific method in 8th grade) goes against Catastrophism, clinging to the outdated view of Uniformitarianism.


It certainly is a theory and a hypothesis, just as you are a teenager and a human. Those big words you used are subheadings within the theory of evolution that debate the importance of bursts of mutations rather than more gradual effects.



> 8. Evolution is a malicious idea which was used to support racism and genocide over the ages, along with several selective breeding of human programs... etc... Of course, religions have been turned to ill purposes as well, but at least they offer some hope...



Certainly a "malicious" statement on your part. Pathological, evil human beings use anything they can to support their twisted views. To say that "evolution supports racism, genocide, selective breeding" is utterly ridiculous. How many people have been harmed in the "Crusades of Evolution"? How many people have been harmed in the "Crusades of Religion"? Your point is profoundly disturbing, but not for what is says about evolution.



> I don't think I am educated enough to go against you on this subject, but I have read a lot of good books about it. In other words, I yeild to a man who is probably at least twice my age, but do not change my opinion in the slighest. It was still a silly thing to do, not at all relevent to this forum.



You are allowed to use as much rope as you like. 

I hope one day you will begin critically reading some real "good books" and perhaps make decisions based upon sense rather than the indoctrination you have received.


----------



## HLGStrider (Mar 17, 2002)

Anyone who believes in Evolution should NOT talk about indoctrination. The scientific comunity has been fed nothing else for the last hundred years. All other theories have been scoffed out of hearing. I am very biased on this subject, but you cannot be educated without being biased. Education is the process of becoming biased. We are all biased about one plus one equalling two. That is obviously true.

Dinosaurs are no proof of evolution. They may have similarities, but Shark have similarities to Whales and they are not supposed to be related. Similarity is not a proof of family. Bats have wings. Birds have wings... Dinosaurs have similar hips to Birds... I have read enough books to hear this repeated again and again as proof. I have read a lot of good books, Harad. In fact, you can assign me any book you want (on this subject.) because at the moment I can't decide what in the heck to read... I really should stop using that phrase... 
I read this really good book called "Of Pandas and People" which I would suggest you read. It is not written from a Christian, Jewish, Muslim, point of view so it isn't a religious text, but it goes over all the main points of Evolution fairly well and it discredits most of them. A lot of people are starting to doubt this theory, actually, and not necessarily for religious reasons...

You made a couple good points though... For instance, my thing about using it as a backing for racism, that was said out of slight anger, I think. I have a bad habit of getting passionate in my posting and just starting to blab. Where was I?




> If you want to talk about the origin of the universe itself, that is contained in another topic called cosmology.



You have a point there. I tend to lump all atheistic theories of origen under the same title, and Evolution is the handiest. 



> Radioactive dating of all kinds shows the same picture of an Earth and solar system that is ~4 billion years old. Carbon 14 analyses that goes on in hundreds of scientific laboratories over the world is itself sensitive to ages up to 60000 years, whereas other more long-lived elements go much farther back. Do you discount all of nuclear physics too? Astronomy measures the lifetimes of stars and galaxies as > 10 billion years, all using scientific methods, that are open to criticism and discarded when they dont fit the facts.



These dating methods you list are sometimes acurate, but I have heard that they often are full of discrepencies. 
There was another book I read called "The Young Earth" (This book you probably wouldn't like, not only because it refutes evolution and all that but because it is blatantly a Christian book, even quoting scripture, but it uses a lot of data.) that went over that... Mind if I take a minute to research... ? I'd forgotten how wordy this book is... Here... section on Radioisotope dating... First section is on how it doesn't work for sedimentary rocks... that isn't part of this discusiion however... It describes half life and stuff... Then it states that it assumes three assumptions First: That there was a constant decay rate. Is it reasonable to assume half life would remain constant through billions of years... etc... it says it is likely enough, so they give your side that much... pretty good for biased. Second: That neither the parent or daughter concentration have been altered. In other words, though you probably know what that means much better than I do, I'm just stating their paraphrase "that the subject has not been contaminated. This is why resulting answers dont agree with each other. My book says this is common. Third: That they know the amount of daughter product at the start, which my books says is the "real Achilles' heel of radioisotope dating." 

There were a lot of examples, as I said, I'm not very well schooled in this. I read a few public school text books as well as Christian schooled ones and the ones written specifically for homeschool, so I think that is a pretty well rounded education. I chose to believe the Christian ones. 


> So does the myth of "creationism" young HLGS, since before life there was non-life.



Actually, we hold all life comes from an eternal God who was always there. 

that probably isn't enough for you, however.I can understand that.YOu don't believe in God, probably, so why should you believe a reason based on him.
I have compnay who came. Got to go. 
You can assign me a book if you want, but you have to promise to read "Of Pandas and People" and at least admit it tried to be fair...


----------



## HLGStrider (Mar 17, 2002)

You know if I wanted to, I could bring up the unfairness of a professional scientist arguing with a junior in highschool... 

so don't call me names or I will cry some more 

By the way, where did I run out of excuses? You don't know me very well... My parents wish I could run out of excuses...


----------



## Harad (Mar 17, 2002)

Shirley, I mean HLGS, its not unfair. You are not afforded a "free ride" because of your youth when you make wild unfounded statements about the real world. You should not downgrade physics and science since the keyboard you are typing on and the internet you are using are built upon the edifice of theories, that you conveeeeeeeeeniently malign. 

HLGS, I am not trying to rob you. I am trying to help you.


----------



## Strider97 (Mar 17, 2002)

HLGS,

You are clearly a bright and well educated young lady. Please do not accept the fact that education is biased. Certain facts exist. The information that you will be given in your education that deals with the social sciences will inevitably be based on the viewpoint of the researcher or reporter. History is usually reported by the victor. The mathmatics and science that you will learn, if approached with an open mind will be much better defined but still open to the realm of theory that will be debated. The scientific method of subjecting theory to test and proofs is a critical component to education and life. The critical process and the one that you will develop is the ability to think and reason independently. The ability to gather and process information in an open and free fashion without any predetermination is the beginning of rational thought. 

Value your religion and cling to your beliefs. If necessary allow yourself to believe that God was the energy or the staring point of the development of life. Do not however allow yourself to be mislead by the Christian "Scientist" that attempt to fill every gap in evolution with God. Evolution or Creationism will always be debated by the christians. The fact that they have had to shift the debate to the scientific realm and bastardize the science is more revealing of their arguments basic weakness and fatal flaw.

This question is very personal to all and I respect your viewpoint. I just encourage an open mind and your gathering information from several viewpoints before you develop your believes. Do not be swayed by dogma.

Also to your point:
HLGS 8. Evolution is a malicious idea which was used to support racism and genocide over the ages, along with several selective breeding of human programs... etc... Of course, religions have been turned to ill purposes as well, but at least they offer some hope... 
Please to not confuse the use of science with the science itself. The development of a master race by the Nazi's was the miappropriation of science and an evil formatted in hate. Science is not good or evil it just is. The use of it is where the good or evil is focused. The social theory of Social Darwinism has been argued, debated and debunked for over a hundred years.

Keep your faith but keep an open mind. You are far to bright to allow the bias of information to cloud your ability to reason and think.

Harad has provided you an excellent foundation to consider


----------



## Greenwood (Mar 17, 2002)

HLGStrider

May I suggest you read the book "What Evolution Is" by Ernst Mayr (published in 2001 by Basic Books). Dr. Mayr is one of the foremost biologists of the 20th Century and at age 97 is still publishing. The book is written for the general reader so I am sure you will have no problem with it. I think you will learn that you do not have an entirely accurate view of evolution. As I said on another thread on the forum when the subject of evolution came up, your religious beliefs are your own, but you should at least know what evolution is, not what creationists caricature it as. There have been, and still are, many, many scientists who have no doubt about the reality of evolution and who also have religious beliefs. There have been evolutionary biologists who have also been priests and ministers. It is a matter of your personal belief, but as Strider97 says, please try to keep an open mind and read more before making up your mind.


----------



## HLGStrider (Mar 17, 2002)

My challange of book reading was to Harad, but if he choses that book it is fine with me...

Religion, such as Christianity is truth. I believe what I have been taught. Christiainity cannot be true if evolution is true. It is impossible. The whole of Christianity is based on Man's redemption after the fall. If God did not create the world and people through Adam and Eve there was no fall, so no redemption is needed. Christianity and Evolution cannot co-exist, though I admit some Christians who do not think too much about it can get away with both. Simple faith can over come discrepencies...

I took back the thing about Racism.

Where was I?

The books I read that back Creationism in one form or another are very informative and state a lot of facts. Science is fact, but Evolution cannot be proven as fact because no one has ever seen it occur and it cannot be tested.
I love my religion, and I love my truth. I've read books that support evolution, both fiction and nonfiction. I always return to the ones that don't.

Harad, how many books have you read in SUPPORT of the creation theory?

They are interesting reading even if you don't change your opinion.


----------



## Harad (Mar 17, 2002)

> Harad, how many books have you read in SUPPORT of the creation theory?



For science to be believable--to be real science--it must be testable vs. the real world. A book can be written by anybody, saying anything, without any verification. The author can make wild claims, give "evidence," and say it all agrees with religion X or religion Y.

That is not how science progresses. Science, at least nowadays, advances thru the publication of articles in science journals. The articles are then subject to the rough and tumble of discussion. If the articles hold up to the scrutiny then they are accepted as adding to the body of knowledge. All of the "evidence" is tested and retested.

For example, the way that Carbon dating works is based upon nuclear physics and theory of probability and statistics. Each of those have been established in exquisite detail over decades if not hundreds of years. There are no loopholes, no topics that are controversial. 

"Creation science" has none of the trappings of science. It is not available for scientific testing. It does not explain facts. It does not explain why dinosaurs are buried in geological layers for which radioisotope dating gives an age of 100 million years. It does not explain rise and fall of species. It does not explain the different families of hominids --Neandertal, for example--that have been discovered in Africa and Asia. 

When I want to read fiction, I stick to entertaining books like LOTR. When I want to read science, I read science papers or books based upon science.


----------



## aragil (Mar 17, 2002)

I might as well comandeer a thread which was started to prevent just such a thing. I missed Harad's evolution challenge, so here's my thought on the matter.
Whether or not he believed in evolution, Tolkien had an evolution in his works- linguistic evolution. His original Elvish language Quenya had evolved into several forms by the time of the War of the Rings. These forms included the extant Quenya, the slightly derived Sindarin, the more derived Adunaic, and the Westron which was mostly derived from Adunaic. He also presented an 'evolved' relationship between the languages which he used to write the book- Modern and Old English. Most of the Rohirric, and much of the Hobittish were Old English words- mathoms, holbytlan, etc. In Tolkien's history, the Hobbits and Eorlingas had originally spoken the same language, but the isolation of the two peoples (on opposite sides of the Misty Mountains for ~2000 years of the third age) had resulted in the divergence of their languages, though many words were still recognizable to eachother. Although I doubt Tolkien knew it, this has several of the aspects of evolution in it- isolated populations eventually developing distinctive features. I suppose I could go on here, but Greenwood knows more of this than I do, so I'll let him address it if anybody cares to hear more. I'm satisfied pointing out that language of hobbits/language of the Rohirrim is a _type_ of evolution found in Tolkien's works. And of course, it begs the question: if Hobbits were considered men, and they spoke a human-derived language, were they themselves an evolved subspecies of men? Also, I've caught Tolkien disussing how trolls might have been bred from primitive mannish stock, but I won't say where.


----------



## Strider97 (Mar 18, 2002)

HLGS Strider 

If you are being home schooled which your posting seemed to indicate you are being shortchanged in the information that you are being allowed to process. I wish you much peace in your religious beliefs. It must be comforting to have that moral certainty that allows you to decide facts and ascertain the truth. It is so stressful gathering conflicting information, weighing the evidence, testing premises and making a rational judgement based on a clear thought process. 

By the way- "Religion such as Christianity is the truth"???

Whose truth, The Jews, Muslims, Hindus, or the hundreds of other world religions. Your truth or my truth. 

Is this the same truth that slaughtered thousands during the Crusade or calls for the murder of Doctors at Abortion Clinics. Is this the truth that allowed the Catholic church to turn a blind eye to the concentration camps or cover for child abusers.

I was simply encouraging you to maintain an open mind.


----------



## Uminya (Mar 18, 2002)

*Warning...*

This is a warning to all that this thread is in danger of descending into personal attack status.

Now I'm sure you people can have one of these nice (yet pointless, imho) religiosity discussions without reference to dung.


----------



## Eonwe (Mar 18, 2002)

This thread has gotten ridiculously out of hand.

HLG -- just keep reading, you'll figure it out yourself. Read everything, what you agree with or not. I suggest not even looking at Evolution until you explore statistics or mathematics. How can you really understand mutation, until you understand effects like simulated annealing (which shows that it is often the best thing to not go in the expected direction to get to your goal the quickest way in a complex system, that is, mutations are necessary in order to quickly change to the best combination of traits), getting a large sample size to approach a true normal distribution of the population you are studying when trying to deduce, etc. Just look at the simple verified distances of the stars, and creationism has a lot of explaining to do. Check out the data from the Hipparchos satellite, available on the Web. I'm not saying you are wrong (I don't really care), but I think you have a lot of nerve on by coming out in a forum like this and making statements about Christianity and Evolution coexisting as impossible.

Nothing personal. And you are right to say, that we should all read things even if we don't agree with them. Science says the experiment must be repeated, so whatever we believe has to hold up to whatever we can throw at it 

Again, it seems everytime religion comes up on this forum, Catholicism is bashed. puleez.

The original premise, whether the Valar, and or Eru, were involved in the Third Age was, I think, a good question, and certainly debatable.

Can we get back to that? There is plenty to talk about within LotR alone.


----------



## David Pence (Mar 18, 2002)

1. I think this thread is pushing it as well. Any further outbursts will result in it's removal. I really don't see any point to it as it is, since there is no question that Tolkien's Middle-earth was created.

2. Harad, I want you to either knock off the insulting and condescending attitude toward the other members, or leave the forum. Quite frankly, you are the only member I receive constant complaints about, and today there was a flood of them, so this is the last warning. The other warnings to you were private, and did not seem to work, so perhaps this public warning will work better.

3. And the rest involved, settle down and drop the subject and any feuds that may be brewing.


----------



## ReadWryt (Mar 18, 2002)

Getting back to the original subject of this thread for a moment, 


> Tolkien declared that the Lord of the Rings had a strong religious component.



I would like to know where Tolkien said this in refutation to the many quotes I would freely share with you in which he points out that there actually is NO religious component in The Lord of the Rings. No Temples, no rites or rituals of a religious nature...no worship. In fact, were you to go back and re-read the letter that makes up the Forward to The Lord of the Rings you would find that his reason for not accepting the Arthurian mythologies as "English" mythos is the inclusion of Christian elements. He set out to create a mythology which was wholely England's and not influenced by any outside influences, which included any established religions. One has to go to the Silmarillion to find any form of religion, and then much of it is the worship of Morgoth by the mislead Numenoreans...


----------



## Strider97 (Mar 18, 2002)

The quick response is that this information was found in his letters. It was one of the reasons given for the Quest original starting date from Rivendell at Christmas. I don't have that information here but as soon as I do I will post it unless someone beats me to it. Thanks, Strider


----------



## Goro Shimura (Mar 18, 2002)

*Miscellaneous Points*

I have a quote of Tolkien discussing Genesis. He is fairly annoyed with the modern type of Christian that was embarassed with the Genesis account-- and from his remarks, it is evident that he would disagree with evolution. 

The fact that he patterned the Creation account of the Silmarillion after Genesis is additional evidence that shows his opinion on the subject. (Fantasy set in worlds that have no Creator God are typical... and Tolkiens work really stands out in terms of its level of Orthodoxy.)

According to T.A. Shippey, the fellowship leaves Rivendell on Dec. 25 and (I think) the Quest is completed on Easter.


----------



## Harad (Mar 18, 2002)

*Re: Miscellaneous Points*



> _Originally posted by Goroshimura _
> and from his remarks, it is evident that he would disagree with evolution.



What remarks?

The Simarrillion no more parallels the Biblical creation story than any other creation story, including the Great Turtle of the American Indians. I would like to read JRRT's words to decide myself his views on evolution.


----------



## Goro Shimura (Mar 18, 2002)

I'll do what I can about getting the quote posted-- but in another thread. (As Eonwe said, this is somewhat off the topic of this particular thread.)



> The Simarrillion no more parallels the Biblical creation story than any other creation story, including the Great Turtle of the American Indians.


 I disagree. This subject is also off topic. If you're interested in what I have to say on this subject, please dig up the old "Finding God in the LotR" thread.


----------



## Strider97 (Mar 18, 2002)

RW- Not the source of my original post but an exerpt from Tolkien discussing Religion, Truth and the creation of alternative worlds

Probably every writer making a secondary world, a fantasy, every sub-creator, wishes in some measure to be a real maker, or hopes that he is drawing on reality: hopes that the peculiar quality of this secondary world (if not all the details) are derived from Reality, or are flowing into it. If he indeed achieves a quality that can fairly be described by the dictionary definition: 'inner consistency of reality', it is difficult to conceive how this can be, if the work does not in some way partake of reality. The peculiar quality of the 'joy' in successful Fantasy can thus be explained as a sudden glimpse of the underlying reality or truth. It is not only a 'consolation' for the sorrow of this world, but a satisfaction, and an answer to that question 'Is it true?' The answer to this question that I gave at first was (quite rightly): 'If you have built your little world well, yes: it is true in that world.' That is enough for the artist (or the artist part of the artist). But in the 'eucatastrophe' we see in a brief vision that the answer may be greater – it may be a far-off gleam or echo of evangelium in the real world. The use of this word gives a hint of my epilogue. It is a serious and dangerous matter. I am a Christian, and so at least should not be suspected of wilful irreverence. Knowing my own ignorance and dullness, it is perhaps presumptuous of me to touch upon such a theme; but if by grace what I say has in any respect any validity, it is, of course, only one facet of a truth incalculably rich: finite only because the capacity of Man for who this was done is finite. 

I would venture to say that approaching the Christian Story from this direction, it has long been my feeling (a joyous feeling) that God redeemed the corrupt making-creatures, men, in a way fitting to this aspect, as to others, of their strange nature. The Gospels contain a fairy-story, or a story of a larger kind which embraces all the essence of fairy-stories. They contain many marvels – particularly artistic, beautiful, and moving: 'mythical' in their perfect, self-contained significance; and at the same time powerfully symbolic and allegorical; and among the marvels is the greatest and most complete conceivable eucatastrophe. The Birth of Christ is the eucatastrophe of Man's history. The Resurrection is the eucatastrophe of the story of the Incarnation. This story begins and ends in joy. It has pre-eminently the 'inner consistency of reality'. There is no tale ever told that men would rather find was true, and none which so many sceptical men have accepted as true on its own merits. For the Art of it has the supremely convincing tone of Primary Art, that is, of Creation. To reject it leads either to madness or to wrath. 

It is not difficult to imagine the peculiar excitement and joy that one would feel, if any specially beautiful fairy-story were found to be 'primarily' true, its narrative to be history, without thereby necessarily losing the mythical or allegorical significance that it had possessed. It is not difficult, for one is not called upon to try and conceive anything of a quality unknown. The joy would have exactly the same quality, if not the same degree, as the joy which the 'turn' in a fairy-story gives: such joy has the very taste of primary truth. (Otherwise its name would not be joy.) It looks forward (or backward: the direction in this regard is unimportant) to the Great Eucatastrophe). The Christian joy, the Gloria, is of the same kind; but it is pre-eminently (infinitely, if our capacity were not finite) high and joyous. Because this story is supreme; and it is true. Art has been verified. God is the Lord, of angels, and of men – and of elves. Legend and History have met and fused. 

But in God's kingdom the presence of the greatest does not depress the small. Redeemed Man is still man. Story, fantasy, still go on, and should go on. The Evangelium has not abrogated legends; it has hallowed them, especially the 'happy' ending'. The Christian has still to work, with mind as well as body, to suffer, hope, and die; but he may now perceive that his bents and faculties have a purpose, which can be redeemed. So great is the bounty with which he has been treated that he may now, perhaps, fairly dare to guess that in Fantasy he may actually assist in the effoliation and multiple enrichment of creation. All tales may come true; and yet, at the last, redeemed, they may be as like and as unlike the forms that we give them as Man, finally redeemed, will be like and unlike the fallen that we know. 

["On Fairy-Stories," Tree and Leaf]


----------



## HLGStrider (Mar 19, 2002)

*Posted before I've read what has been said since I last posted.*

Sorry, I know you changed the subject, but I didn't have a chance to seriously defend my position... I was gone all yesterday (away from the computer) and I wrote this out while I was away from the computer.

To explain my "reasonable doubt"... This is just one of the few things that leads me to doubt Evolution. 
On the origen of life Evolution states that life formed in a "prebiotic soup". Amino Acids have been produced in lab simulations, but they haven't been able to prompt these furthere (to become DNA or real protiens).
Problem: To make these experiments work oxygen was held back, eliminated, because oxygen would destroy these acids. Evolution therefore assumes that there was on oxygen on early earth. However, there is strong evidence that oxygen was present in the eariliest ages of the earth. Also, ozone, something significant levels of oxygen is needed to produce would be necessary to shield these early substances from lethal ultra-violet rays. 

My conclusion: If there was oxygen it would kill any potential Amino Acids (In a real life setting). 
If there wasn't oxygen, the ultra-violet rays would fry the amino acid.... Conclusion to conclusion: Catch 22.

Another problem: The energy needed to create one reaction would break apart weaker, previously formed reactions. The process of breaking down is more likely to occur, so the net result is a very small amount of chemical compounds. 
In the experiment (Done by Stanley Miller in 1953) amino acids were siphoned off through a trap so they could be protected. There is no evidence that nature would (or could) do this.

My conclusion: For every amino acid formed, two would've had to break.

Third Problem: Amino Acids, sugar, protien, and DNA are complex three dimentional structures. To quote the text "Researchers have found no natural conditions they can incorperate in simulation experiments that will produce ony the correct three dimentional structures." (The spelling is mine, not the text. I used abriviations when taking notes the other night, so I have to try and guess the spellings). 

My conclusion: It sounds a lot like throwing a jig saw puzzle in the spin cycle and hoping it'll go together.

Fourth Problem: Once formed Amino Acids react more readily with other substances than each other. They would not wait for the right partner but become tied up and unavailable for any useful function. This is why most experiments produce a black oily "goo", which is non-biological. 

The theory of intelligent design (creationism) sets down that a designer made, organized, and put life on this plannet. DNA is much like a written message which is highly complex. It is more complex than language or computer programs... well, maybe not some computer programs, but you get the idea. It is a jigsaw puzzle. Science cannot answer what wrote them and designed them (My text states that it is a question which should be left to religion and philosophy). Science should, however, be able to admit to an "intelligent cause" origen...

There, I gave one example of why I have a "reasonable doubt". There are several more


By the way, I've changed my opinion on the Free Will issue, at least in real life. I was reading CS Lewis's Mere Christianity today, and this one chapter changed my mind. Lewis is a good writer. Anyway, I could never state it as well as he did.

Anyway, he stated that God made a good world, but that it has "gone bad". He gave us free will so that we could chose to do good and love him, but it also allows us to do bad. He compared the worlds situation with a child's room. You know, the mother says "I'm not cleaning up after you. From now on cleaning this room is up to you." 
That gives the child a choice and the child often lets the room get messy. There's only so much messy anyone can stand before they do something about it, however. Anyway, if you want to know a good overveiw of the Christian viewpoint on this, check out Mere Christianity. If you don't, don't, cause it has absolutely nothing to do with the Lord of the Rings.


----------



## HLGStrider (Mar 19, 2002)

Sorry, Webmaster guy, I didn't see your post til after I posted, but do you mind if I defend myself and a few statements? Scouts honor, will try not to hurt feelings...

Let's see quotes...


> Harad: It does not explain facts. It does not explain why dinosaurs are buried in geological layers for which radioisotope dating gives an age of 100 million years. It does not explain rise and fall of species. It does not explain the different families of hominids --Neandertal, for example--that have been discovered in Africa and Asia.



DOES TOO!!! Check out Genesis. Dinosaurs and all other species were quick flashed buried during a certain world wide flood (You've probably heard of it). I have stated before that I doubt Radio Isotopic dating. Fossils are made when buried quickly and deeply with certain sorts of Chemicals and sentiments. Sentiments??? Sorry, sediments (I had to leave that mistake up because I think it was funny.). The flood produces the perfect conditions. Also, (geology was once to be my field of choice before I started writing essays about it and discovered I liked writing better) geological layers can be formed in minutes. We've all seen them listed as proof and shown how they took millions of years to form, but when Mt. St. Helen's blew her top, several layers of sediment were put down by mudflows, lava, and ash, creating walls of dirt which, when cut away by water, look very similar to those walls formed "millions of years" at a time.

Neanderthal, if you dressed him in a shirt and tie, could pass unnoticed on a New York subway. (I read that in National Geographic!) Actually, I thought Neanderthal was one of the ones that had been disproved.. .turned out to be a race of cave dwellers with rickets... I say one of the ones. There was also Nebraska man (Turned out to be a pig). Piltdown man (That was a hoax). Ramapithecus (Experts now disavowed him). And Ocre Man (Who turned out to be a donkey). 



> Strider: If you are being home schooled which your posting seemed to indicate you are being shortchanged in the information that you are being allowed to process



My fellow Strider, you do NOT know homeschooling.  Besides, you can't escape evolution. It is everywhere from National Geographic (Which I had a subscription too until I couldn't pay for it anymore) to kids television.



> Whose truth, The Jews, Muslims, Hindus, or the hundreds of other world religions. Your truth or my truth.



I don't believe Truth is relative, but to quote CS Lewis, a true Christian believes there is some element of truth in all religion. I can't proove Christianity is the true one, but one of them has to be true (Perhaps even atheism which I count as a religion). Since they often contradict each other they can't all be true.



> Eowne: ), but I think you have a lot of nerve on by coming out in a forum like this and making statements about Christianity and Evolution coexisting as impossible.



Well, how could they? I think you all have a lot of nerve calling creationism psuedoscience and bastaradized. If you can find a way to reconcile the theories, go ahead. I don't care. I just think it is extremely hard to do... 


> Again, it seems everytime religion comes up on this forum, Catholicism is bashed. puleez.



Did I do that in some way? If so, I am extremely sorry. I have a great respect for Catholics... and Tolkien was one!

Sorry moderator guys, but I think I deserved a chance at defense, and it would've taken forever to PM all these guys and gals.


----------



## Harad (Mar 19, 2002)

*Re: Posted before I've read what has been said since I last posted.*

You are quite correct with the principle of examining each of the logical building blocks of the beginnings of life. But the more important point is that since biological evolution is science, one CAN examine and question each of the points. Since creationism is religion, not science, it makes no sense to examine its points.



> _Originally posted by HLGStrider _
> 
> 
> > On the origen of life Evolution states that life formed in a "prebiotic soup". Amino Acids have been produced in lab simulations, but they haven't been able to prompt these furthere (to become DNA or real protiens).
> ...


----------



## HLGStrider (Mar 19, 2002)

Well, I am arguing the origen of life, whether you like it or not! 

Where was I?

Oh yes... that I was arguing against that life could form in the first place... Actually, life is put here in complete form. DNA is transfered, intact, from father and mother to son and daughter...

The water idea has some merit, I suppose, but it sounds a bit... watery for an excuse... 

Darwin wasn't that great of scientist. I believe his ideas of genetics were screwy. He had everybody rejecting poor Mendel, because heredity disagreed with the origenal theory, though it has now been adoupted by evolutionists. The origenal theory was something like if a red cow married a white cow they'd have pink cows... Instead of the two of their children would be red and one white and one red but carrying a white gene... Etc...

I told you I wasn't qualified to lecture on this, but I'll do my best... I'll come up with another point for you to butcher tomorrow. Of course, we are making the moderators mad...


----------



## Eonwe (Mar 19, 2002)

"And the rest involved, settle down and drop the subject and any feuds that may be brewing" -- THE SUPREME BEING (webmaster)

??


----------



## HLGStrider (Mar 19, 2002)

Good idea, I suppose. Hummmm....

Anyway, the only blatant acts of divine intervention I can think of are in the Silmarilion, and unless you count creation and the battles with Melkor, the only one I can think of in there is Tuor meeting with a Valar...


----------



## Greenwood (Mar 19, 2002)

> Darwin wasn't that great of scientist. I believe his ideas of genetics were screwy. He had everybody rejecting poor Mendel, because heredity disagreed with the origenal theory, though it has now been adoupted by evolutionists. The origenal theory was something like if a red cow married a white cow they'd have pink cows... Instead of the two of their children would be red and one white and one red but carrying a white gene... Etc...



Slight correction here. There is no evidence that Darwin never heard of Mendel, much less rejected him. The pink cow example you give was actually the argument raised by the anti-evolutionists. Mendelian genetics along with population genetics (see my private message to you) actually provides the basis for modern evolutionary biology. It would have been interesting if Darwin had heard of Mendel. Mendel's work, when it was "discovered" sixteen years after his death, provided tremendous support for Darwin's ideas. One further correction, Darwin is generally considered one of the greatest scientists in history.


----------



## Merry (Mar 20, 2002)

> _Originally posted by HLGStrider _
> *Good idea, I suppose. Hummmm....
> 
> Anyway, the only blatant acts of divine intervention I can think of are in the Silmarilion, and unless you count creation and the battles with Melkor, the only one I can think of in there is Tuor meeting with a Valar... *



This post is far too late but could HLGS and Harad go somewhere else and finish this debate, you have killed what was a very good thread!!

Free will vs Divine Intervention....remember?

Thanks guys


----------



## lilhobo (Mar 20, 2002)

Free will vs Divine Intervention???

to answer this question you will have to answer the question of whether JRR intended LOTR to have an element of an almighty god to weave the sounds of life (which all religions have) rather than if he intended to have Christianity as the sole basis for the novel

i believe that Tolkien started with a Christian story that he developed/modified into non-demonination religious text.

Galadriel is a goddess that people (legolas, later gimli) either love or hate (boromir)

sauron is a god that people fear and despise and yet still worshipped.


A King or Monarch is a divine representative on earth anyways! For people to accept herditary monarchy is to accept a hierachical world order leading up to an almighty being!

the fact that Frodo cried the name of Elbereth and frightened the Nazgul king, and then JRR discards further notion of God, shows that Tolkien was moving away from a christian text, and towards a pagan text!


----------



## Greenwood (Mar 21, 2002)

> _Quote by Goroshimura_
> According to T.A. Shippey, the fellowship leaves Rivendell on Dec. 25 and (I think) the Quest is completed on Easter.



Yes, the Tale of Years in the Appendices does have the Fellowship leave Rivendell on December 25 and the Ring is destroyed on March 25, but March 25 cannot be Easter. Each year Easter is set by the phases of the moon relative to the Vernal Equinox (the first day of spring). Specifically Easter is the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox. As the Fellowship travels down Anduin after leaving Lothlorien one night Sam comments on the phases of the moon in trying to figure out how long they spent in Lothlorien (in the chapter The Great River in FOTR). Based on Sam's observation that there was a new crescent moon the night before and given that this event took place on the night the Fellowship was attacked above Sarn Gebir which the Tale of Years gives as occurring on February 23, it is a simple matter to calculate the phase of the moon on March 25 when the Quest is fulfilled. The moon's cycle is a bit over 28 days, therefore even allowing for a day or so uncertainty in our calculations the moon has to be within a day or two of first quarter on March 25. Thus, if there was such a thing as Easter in Middle-earth in the year 3019 of the Third Age Easter would fall on April 2. Either Tolkien's calendar calculations were woefully off or he did not intend for the Quest to end on Easter Sunday. Just another example of don't automatically accept the word of "experts".


----------



## Goro Shimura (Mar 22, 2002)

That Tolkien is amazing.

He just seems to unintentionally put this Christian stuff into his tale! 

Sorta like how Bach _accidentally_ wrote his cannons.


----------



## Greenwood (Mar 22, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Goroshimura _
> *That Tolkien is amazing.
> 
> He just seems to unintentionally put this Christian stuff into his tale!
> ...




What Christian stuff? The fact that it was not Easter as you said T.A. Shippey claimed.


----------



## Harad (Mar 22, 2002)

Stop cornfusing him with the facts. Astronomy for fun and prophet. Good job, Greenwood!


----------



## Goro Shimura (Mar 22, 2002)

[Rereads post]

Oh.

Oops. 

Well... did the Qwest end on Good Friday? How about Palm Sunday?


----------



## Harad (Mar 23, 2002)

No.
But Gandalf was imprisoned in Orthanc during St. Swithins Day.


----------



## Strider97 (Mar 26, 2002)

> _Originally posted by ReadWryt _
> *Getting back to the original subject of this thread for a moment,
> 
> 
> I would like to know where Tolkien said this in refutation to the many quotes I would freely share with you in which he points out that there actually is NO religious component in The Lord of the Rings. No Temples, no rites or rituals of a religious nature...no worship. In fact, were you to go back and re-read the letter that makes up the Forward to The Lord of the Rings you would find that his reason for not accepting the Arthurian mythologies as "English" mythos is the inclusion of Christian elements. He set out to create a mythology which was wholely England's and not influenced by any outside influences, which included any established religions. One has to go to the Silmarillion to find any form of religion, and then much of it is the worship of Morgoth by the mislead Numenoreans... *



RW- Sorry it took so long for me to get back to you. I think that the word that has conflicted our two points is component. Tolkien did not want christian components (I misiused a word) but religious elements. To him the third age was not a christian world but was a relgious world.

From the letters:
From Letter #142:
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. * 

From Letter #165:
It is not `about' anything but itself. Certainly it has no allegorical intentions, general, particular, or topical, moral, religious, or political. The only criticism that annoyed me was on that it `contained no religion' (and `no Women', but that does not matter, and is not true anyway). It is a monotheistic world of `natural theology'. The odd fact that there are no churches, temples, or religious rits and ceremonies, is simply part of the historical climate depicted. It will be sufficiently explained, if (as now seems likely) the Silmarillion and other legends of the First and Second Ages are published. I am in any case myself a Christian; but the `Third Age' was not a Christian world.


----------



## Strider97 (Mar 26, 2002)

.RW- Your quote "In fact, were you to go back and re-read the letter that makes up the Forward to The Lord of the Rings you would find that his reason for not accepting the Arthurian mythologies as "English" mythos is the inclusion of Christian elements. He set out to create a mythology which was wholely England's and not influenced by any outside influences, which included any established religions."

I agree that this is the reason he felt that the Arthurian legend was invalid was that it was to naturalized with it's Christian elements. He did not want Christian elements but relgious elements. a certain belief in a faith.

Letter 131
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. (I am speaking, of course. of our present situation, not of ancient pagan, pre-Christian days.)... In the cosmogony there is a fall: a fall of Angels we should say. Though quite different in form, of course, to that of Christian myth. 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 aspects of it that can only be received in this mode; and long ago certain truths and modes of this kind were discovered and must always reappear

We are not too far off I believe in our points. I do not believe that I ever asserted that LOTR was a Christian novel as much as many of our friends would like to believe that it is. I believe Tolkiens faith and the conflicts he felt about that faith especially the joy and the sorrow that faith brought to him are inextricably woven in the text. Religion brought him peace as well as heartbreak. Thanks, Strider.


----------

