Our Sponsor Sideshow Collectibles Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net?
Consider a donation!

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Reading Room:
The Look of A Dark Lord
First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All

a.s.
Valinor


Mar 3 2008, 6:30pm

Post #51 of 74 (128 views)
Shortcut
no! Sauron is a created thing or [In reply to] Can't Post

there's no creation reality in ME.

I mean, unless the Valar on down are creations of Eru and the Music, it doesn't work and reality is, you know...not reality at all.

And while I think there's a case to be made for existentialist questions and perhaps we construct our own realities, and etc...within ME and according to Tolkien, all these beings are created.

The Devil, to Tolkien, was real, a real created being, as real as any angel or man. Not a metaphor for evil.


All that said (and for some reason the song "The Boys Are Back In Town" is running through my head!! LOL) couldn't this "eye of Sauron" be some technology that is not understandable to most of the beings who experience it (like magic) and so has come to be mythologized as "The Eye Of Sauron"?

a.s.

"an seileachan"

"Just look along the road, and tell me if you can see either of them."

"I see nobody on the road," said Alice.

"I only wish I had such eyes," the King remarked in a fretful tone. "To be able to see Nobody! And at that distance too! Why, it's as much as I can do to see real people, by this light!"


Curious
Half-elven


Mar 3 2008, 6:35pm

Post #52 of 74 (137 views)
Shortcut
"Just a metaphor"? [In reply to] Can't Post

It's exactly that kind of thinking Tolkien was trying to counter. Of course Sauron is a metaphor -- but as a.s. noted in this week's Beowulf thread, Tolkien thought that inhuman foes made the story "larger and more significant." Tolkien was in love with metaphors, and believed in them in a way most modern thinkers don't. Metaphors are true; it's what your five senses tell you that you perhaps should not trust.


Darkstone
Immortal


Mar 3 2008, 6:44pm

Post #53 of 74 (129 views)
Shortcut
But [In reply to] Can't Post

The Devil, to Tolkien, was real, a real created being, as real as any angel or man. Not a metaphor for evil.

Wasn't LOTR a way for Tolkien to explore the nature of evil? Indeed, he seems pretty uninterested in Evil, or Sauron, as a character. He seems to prefer to explore the effect of Evil on characters. Saruman and the White Kings aren't Evil Incarnate, but rather beings who made Evil choices.

So does a being of Absolute Evil have a place as a real character in Tolkien's story? Or is Sauron merely a metaphor for the monocular single-minded tunnel vision that creates Evil from Good Intentions?

******************************************
The audacious proposal stirred his heart. And the stirring became a song, and it mingled with the songs of Gil-galad and Celebrian, and with those of Feanor and Fingon. The song-weaving created a larger song, and then another, until suddenly it was as if a long forgotten memory woke and for one breathtaking moment the Music of the Ainur revealed itself in all glory. He opened his lips to sing and share this song. Then he realized that the others would not understand. Not even Mithrandir given his current state of mind. So he smiled and simply said "A diversion.”



Darkstone
Immortal


Mar 3 2008, 6:48pm

Post #54 of 74 (133 views)
Shortcut
So... [In reply to] Can't Post

...like the Bible is a True Myth, Sauron is a True Metaphor?

So could Balrog wings be True Metaphors?

******************************************
The audacious proposal stirred his heart. And the stirring became a song, and it mingled with the songs of Gil-galad and Celebrian, and with those of Feanor and Fingon. The song-weaving created a larger song, and then another, until suddenly it was as if a long forgotten memory woke and for one breathtaking moment the Music of the Ainur revealed itself in all glory. He opened his lips to sing and share this song. Then he realized that the others would not understand. Not even Mithrandir given his current state of mind. So he smiled and simply said "A diversion.”



Curious
Half-elven


Mar 3 2008, 7:04pm

Post #55 of 74 (127 views)
Shortcut
Not quite. [In reply to] Can't Post

Tolkien believed that Bible to be a true myth in a historical sense, which LotR certainly is not. But Satan, on the other hand, could be a true metaphor in the exactly same sense as Morgoth or Sauron -- indeed Morgoth or Sauron may be other names for Satan, as Eru is another name for God.

So does that make God a true metaphor? Dare I say yes? Yes, as long as we mean metaphor as Truth, and not as Lie. I'm not sure that Tolkien would have dared to say this about God, but I cannot emphasize enough that I do not mean metaphor in the modern sense -- a pleasant lie -- but in the ancient sense -- a marvelous truth beyond what our five senses perceive.


a.s.
Valinor


Mar 3 2008, 7:16pm

Post #56 of 74 (127 views)
Shortcut
"nothing is evil in the beginning" [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
So does a being of Absolute Evil have a place as a real character in Tolkien's story?



"Nothing is evil in the beginning. Even Sauron was not so". Neither Sauron nor any other created being in Arda is "absolute evil", only corrupted good. Although he has become irredeemable (as all fallen angels are now irredeemable), he was not created to be evil. All things created by Eru are good. Sauron chose to be evil. But he is not evil incarnate--not a "force" of evil somehow embodied; he is a corrupted angel.

Sauron isn't metaphorical within the book, within the written memoir of Bilbo and Frodo, etc. However, he is mythical to them because he has only been experienced as "The Eye" or as stories of others, etc. His shape is vague, his "Eye" enhanced in the telling because they have never seen him firsthand. Similarly, Galadriel is "the witch of the wood" to those who only know her from stories, and have not seen her firsthand.



Quote
Or is Sauron merely a metaphor for the monocular single-minded tunnel vision that creates Evil from Good Intentions?




Not sure exactly what you mean by the "monocular single-minded tunnel vision that creates Evil from Good Intentions" (although I do love the ring of the words!). Evil didn't enter the world accidently, by good intentions gone bad. Even in Tolkien's secondary world, evil entered by corruption of the Music, purposely and with evil intent. So I don't know if Tolkien bought the concept that there is such a thing as a "single-minded" purpose in this manner. Evil isn't accidental, in Tolkien's primary or secondary world. Evil is a choice. Do you mean something like cutting down all the trees to make shopping centers because you want to give people a place to work? Thereby causing an evil by your good intentions? Sauron does not have good intentions, so I don't think he could be a metaphor for the road to hell paved with those proverbial things.

I do think there is a connection beween the concept of the "evil eye" and Sauron, not a direct one per se (I mean, I don't think Tolkien was trying to re-create the beginnings of the myth of "The Evil Eye"). But there must be a mutual influence somewhere...

a.s.

"an seileachan"

"Just look along the road, and tell me if you can see either of them."

"I see nobody on the road," said Alice.

"I only wish I had such eyes," the King remarked in a fretful tone. "To be able to see Nobody! And at that distance too! Why, it's as much as I can do to see real people, by this light!"


Darkstone
Immortal


Mar 3 2008, 8:09pm

Post #57 of 74 (125 views)
Shortcut
Well [In reply to] Can't Post

Tolkien believed that Bible to be a true myth in a historical sense, which LotR certainly is not. But Satan, on the other hand, could be a true metaphor in the exactly same sense as Morgoth or Sauron -- indeed Morgoth or Sauron may be other names for Satan, as Eru is another name for God.

But the image of Eru sitting around making music with a band of angleic beings is surely a metaphor for Creation rather than an actual event. Just like God is not really a white haired bearded guy up in the clouds with a halo and a white robe, nor is Satan a red guy with horns hopping around on cloven hooves poking people with a pitchfork. They are metaphors for forces man cannot comprehend. Perhaps the reason Tolkien never truly describes Sauron is that, like God and Satan, he is indescribable, uncomprehendable, and so he must be reduced to the metaphor of the One Eye, or a Black Hand With Four Fingers. So really, when Tolkien scholars argue over the form of Sauron, they're like medieval scholars arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.


I'm not sure that Tolkien would have dared to say this about God, but I cannot emphasize enough that I do not mean metaphor in the modern sense -- a pleasant lie -- but in the ancient sense -- a marvelous truth beyond what our five senses perceive.

I've always conceived of metaphors as paths to Truth, not "pleasant lies". Sort of like really short parables.

******************************************
The audacious proposal stirred his heart. And the stirring became a song, and it mingled with the songs of Gil-galad and Celebrian, and with those of Feanor and Fingon. The song-weaving created a larger song, and then another, until suddenly it was as if a long forgotten memory woke and for one breathtaking moment the Music of the Ainur revealed itself in all glory. He opened his lips to sing and share this song. Then he realized that the others would not understand. Not even Mithrandir given his current state of mind. So he smiled and simply said "A diversion.”



Tolkien Forever
Gondor

Mar 3 2008, 8:41pm

Post #58 of 74 (147 views)
Shortcut
Looks More Like.... [In reply to] Can't Post

Gollum to me.

Are we sure that Tolkien didn't bmix up the Titles in that 'mess of papers' Christopher had to sift through Wink

BTW: Curious, Do you think Gollum was burned by that Elven rope? I always did, figuring it was similar (in a smaller sense) to the way that Morgoth was burned by the Silmarils.....

Gollum is evil & the elven rope (and lembas) have the virtue of the goodness (being) of the Elves poured into them.


Curious
Half-elven


Mar 3 2008, 8:48pm

Post #59 of 74 (124 views)
Shortcut
Not quite. [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
So really, when Tolkien scholars argue over the form of Sauron, they're like medieval scholars arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.


It's not quite like arguing about whether several angels can be in the same place at the same time, since Thomas Aquinas was quite serious when he addressed that question. I think most Tolkien scholars arguing about the form of Sauron in LotR know that they are engaged in an elaborate game, not theology or philosophy.

Of course from the perspective of a cynic like Isaac D'Israeli, Aquinas may seem to have been engaged in an elaborate game as well. Which is why D'Israeli lampooned Aquinas's analysis, or some similar analysis, with the comical picture of multiple angels dancing on the point of a needle.

The funny thing is that when we discuss Tolkien in such detail, we can find ourselves deep into theology or philosophy. And those are the questions that interest me the most. What is the meaning of metaphor? Does Tolkien offer a different meaning from the one assumed by most people in the modern world? How would it change our perspective on life to consider metaphors as true, not lies, or to blur the distinction between the literal and the metaphorical? How does Sauron dominate a story in which he never makes an appearance? How does it change our perspective to personify Evil? How does our perspective change at the end of the tale, when the personification of Evil is gone? Next to these questions, I'm just not that interested in whether Sauron has two eyes, although I am interested in why Tolkien never bothered to tell us the answer to that question.


Darkstone
Immortal


Mar 3 2008, 8:53pm

Post #60 of 74 (116 views)
Shortcut
Exactly [In reply to] Can't Post

But he is not evil incarnate--not a "force" of evil somehow embodied; he is a corrupted angel.

So is Satan a corrupted angel.


Sauron isn't metaphorical within the book, within the written memoir of Bilbo and Frodo, etc.

But they never actually met Sauron. So how did they know that he existed at all, at least as a real, physical being?


Similarly, Galadriel is "the witch of the wood" to those who only know her from stories, and have not seen her firsthand.

Yet her form doesn’t seem constant. One moment she’s tall beyond measurement, and beautiful beyond enduring, the next she's a shrunken slender elf-woman. Yet it’s little wonder because the Galadriel that Frodo sees is not the Galadriel that is real. Like all Elves she exists outside of this world. To the eyes of Men the forms they see of Elves are merely metaphors for the truly beautiful beings that the senses of Man cannot comprehend.


Not sure exactly what you mean by the "monocular single-minded tunnel vision that creates Evil from Good Intentions" (although I do love the ring of the words!).

There is no one more potentially dangerous than someone who is intent upon doing good.


Evil didn't enter the world accidently, by good intentions gone bad.

But as you quoted, "Nothing is evil in the beginning. Even Sauron was not so".


Even in Tolkien's secondary world, evil entered by corruption of the Music, purposely and with evil intent.

Well, it’s kind of like Satan and his rebellious angels. God created the angels, then decided to create Man in his own image. Naturally some of the angels were jealous that God created this upstart. They thought they were the number one creations of God. So they sought to show God (no doubt for His own good, of course) how corruptible His new favorite creations were. Similarly, one might imagine the same motives for Melkor.


Evil isn't accidental, in Tolkien's primary or secondary world. Evil is a choice.

But is it really a choice to be Evil? The choices the ring offers to Sam and Boromir are not Evil. Creating a garden of the world and saving Gondor are good intentioned. As Gandalf said, “Yet the way of the Ring to my heart is by pity, pity for weakness and the desire of strength to do good.”


Do you mean something like cutting down all the trees to make shopping centers because you want to give people a place to work? Thereby causing an evil by your good intentions?

Precisely. The Law of Unintended Consequences. A person can be so single-minded, so intent on creating jobs and houses and factories for the good of people, that they are entirely blind to the fact that they’re destroying the environment. I agree with Will Smith that even the people we consider the most Evil no doubt got up in the morning with the thought to make the world a better place. But it’s easier and more comfortable to demonize people. So instead of going “you know, I know your heart’s in the right place, but maybe you ought to stop and think about what you’re doing” we yell “You’re Evil and you’re doing Evil things!!” But they know they’re not Evil, so they ignore us.


Sauron does not have good intentions, so I don't think he could be a metaphor for the road to hell paved with those proverbial things.

"Nothing is evil in the beginning. Even Sauron was not so". So if he wasn’t Evil in the beginning, then his initial intentions were Good. Indeed, maybe he still is convinced that what he is doing is truly Good. His One Eye symbolizes his monocular, single-minded vision. He cannot see the parallax. He cannot see the true consequences.

******************************************
The audacious proposal stirred his heart. And the stirring became a song, and it mingled with the songs of Gil-galad and Celebrian, and with those of Feanor and Fingon. The song-weaving created a larger song, and then another, until suddenly it was as if a long forgotten memory woke and for one breathtaking moment the Music of the Ainur revealed itself in all glory. He opened his lips to sing and share this song. Then he realized that the others would not understand. Not even Mithrandir given his current state of mind. So he smiled and simply said "A diversion.”



Darkstone
Immortal


Mar 3 2008, 9:03pm

Post #61 of 74 (116 views)
Shortcut
Well [In reply to] Can't Post

It's not quite like arguing about whether several angels can be in the same place at the same time, since Thomas Aquinas was quite serious when he addressed that question.

So does it seem with a lot of Tolkien scholars. Indeed, some on the board can get quite nasty when people espouse what they consider "heresy". Even worse than us Baptists, and that's saying something.


I think most Tolkien scholars arguing about the form of Sauron in LotR know that they are engaged in an elaborate game, not theology or philosophy.

Dunno. I get the impression a lot of them would get pretty violent if you argued with them in person. People have killed other people over games before.


...although I am interested in why Tolkien never bothered to tell us the answer to that question.

I'll drink to that.

******************************************
The audacious proposal stirred his heart. And the stirring became a song, and it mingled with the songs of Gil-galad and Celebrian, and with those of Feanor and Fingon. The song-weaving created a larger song, and then another, until suddenly it was as if a long forgotten memory woke and for one breathtaking moment the Music of the Ainur revealed itself in all glory. He opened his lips to sing and share this song. Then he realized that the others would not understand. Not even Mithrandir given his current state of mind. So he smiled and simply said "A diversion.”



a.s.
Valinor


Mar 3 2008, 9:33pm

Post #62 of 74 (151 views)
Shortcut
a mon-ocle is monocular, true that! [In reply to] Can't Post

Wink
OK, I just typed a long post and somehow lost it trying to switch to Basic Editor, a first.

Instead of quoting, I'll just argue my points and know you well enough to know that you can follow even the most convoluted of logic (I admire that!).

Yes, Satan is a corrupted angel. He is also real, though, at least to a Catholic believer. He is not a metaphor for evil in the world, but a specific angelic personality (and angels are individual persons, just like humans) who sinned and was condemned for all time. We nmy use the name or concept of Satan metaphorically, at times, but to a believer Satan is a specific person. We call him Satan, but he could have any name. It doesn't matter what we call him, anymore than it matters what we call Sauron. He might not even have a "name" in that sense, not to God. But he definitely has a unique person.

What he looks like, though, is another matter.

One does not need to meet someone to know they are real. Let's stick to rationalism, as I don't think a believer like Tolkien would question whether the created world was real or just a construct of his mind: I haven't met Tolkien, was he real?

Just because Galadriel may be converted by frail mortal senses into a being of beauty and light (because perhaps mortal eyes cannot comprehend her true essense), does that make her less real?

Yes, there are few things more dangerous than good intentions, which only proves how fallible and sinful men are, and does not prove that evil began with good intentions.

Evil did not enter the world accidently, whether it was good or bad, it was intentional. I believe that's what Tolkien means by "Nothing was bad in the beginning", which is almost rote Catholic Catechism.



Quote
Well, it’s kind of like Satan and his rebellious angels. God created the angels, then decided to create Man in his own image. Naturally some of the angels were jealous that God created this upstart. They thought they were the number one creations of God. So they sought to show God (no doubt for His own good, of course) how corruptible His new favorite creations were. Similarly, one might imagine the same motives for Melkor.




Yes, kind of exactly like that. But when we get back to the realm of "before LOTR", I get a little shaky in my defense of what's real (within the story). That is, it might be that Melkor began with good intentions (to show Eru the error of his ways) and we have only the handed down explanation of the Music to explain how evil came into the world. But I don't think I can sustain an argument about Melkor's intentions in any way. I can only state that I believe Sauron, within the LOTR, is "real".

a.s.

"an seileachan"

"Just look along the road, and tell me if you can see either of them."

"I see nobody on the road," said Alice.

"I only wish I had such eyes," the King remarked in a fretful tone. "To be able to see Nobody! And at that distance too! Why, it's as much as I can do to see real people, by this light!"


Tolkien Forever
Gondor

Mar 3 2008, 11:08pm

Post #63 of 74 (145 views)
Shortcut
Satan, Morgoth & Sauron [In reply to] Can't Post

First & foremost, who says Tolkien believed the bible to be 'historical myth'?

What the heck does 'historical myth' mean?

Lack of faith in God's word if you ask me, i.e., rationalizing the miraculous into scientific & humanistic rational as every word in the bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit.
It's either a bunch of man made BS or the very word of God......

Is Satan real?
Not if you don't know God.......
And that is his best lie ever.
If God is truely real in your life, you will find out just how real Satan & his fallen angels can be when they spiritually attack you - it is not fun.

Yet, none of this could be proven to an 'unbeliever', of which I was the biggest & quite a scoffer until a miraculous conversion ala the Apostle Paul on the way to Damascus.

Enough 'theology'/'religion' (if you call it that).

Now, onto Tolkien. There's so much Christianity in his works. It dawned on me the other day that the 'Flame imperishable' in The Bridge of Khazad-dum represents The Holy Spirit, just as Gandalf is a type of Christ in rising from the dead & returning clothed & in white light with greater power. The Holy Spirit is in fact often pictured in those Catholic pictures as a flame over the heart.......

As for Morgoth, I don't think any of us who know the history of Satan would doubt that Morgoth is based on the story of Satan: Fallen angelic being looking for his own glory & kingdom, takes many other angelic beings with him, ends up eternally banished in the 'void' after reigning on earth & causing mass destruction after the gods' come back to defeat him. He's even released at the end to be finally completely defeated like Satan will be....

Sauron, on the other hand, while being a fallen servant of the 'devil' (Morgoth), is still seen as Satan himself at times, especially in the story of the Akallabeth. Here, he tempts & deceives Ar-Pharazon into attacking Valinor, getting him to worship 'Melkor, Giver of gifts' & 'Lord of Darkness', with human sacrivices in a false temple set up in mockery of the real temple that's existed for 3000 years......

Just as had happened in the real world with Isreal versus, say Baal or even the Mayans who sacrivice virgins. Tolkien even calls this 'Satanic worship' in one or two of his Letters.

Does Sauron really worship Melkor? I doubt it, but telling Ar-Pharazon to worship "Sauron, the new Dark Lord" certainly won't do just then either.
But, remember, Sauron has become both god & king to his servants.......

Tolkien says in one place that he claims to be Morgoth returned in the Third Age & it's interesting to note that he will not allow his name to be spoken.
Obviously, in Numenor he did not pretend to be Morgoth, so perhaps he is a bit insecure without his Ring?


a.s.
Valinor


Mar 4 2008, 12:45am

Post #64 of 74 (126 views)
Shortcut
Tolkien himself said Christ was a true myth [In reply to] Can't Post

Not "The Bible", but "the story of Christ", was what Tolkien said was a "true myth".

Tolkien explained to Lewis that all myths contain a type of truth, but Christ as God made Man was a "true myth". This conversation was the proximal cause of Lewis' conversion to Christianity. Here's one explanation, from Joseph Pearce:


Building on this philosophy of myth, Tolkien explained to Lewis that the story of Christ was the true myth at the very heart of history and at the very root of reality. Whereas the pagan myths were manifestations of God expressing Himself through the minds of poets, using the images of their "mythopoeia" to reveal fragments of His eternal truth, the true myth of Christ was a manifestation of God expressing Himself through Himself, with Himself, and in Himself. God, in the Incarnation, had revealed Himself as the ultimate poet who was creating reality, the true poem or true myth, in His own image. Thus, in a divinely inspired paradox, myth was revealed as the ultimate realism.

Such a revelation changed Lewis' whole conception of Christianity, precipitating his conversion.


Carpenter's biography (and all Tolkien scholars should at least be familiar with that standard work) also tells this story. Lewis was converted to Christianity after a late-night talk with Tolkien and Dyson in which the subject of "true myth" was brought up.

a.s.

"an seileachan"

"Just look along the road, and tell me if you can see either of them."

"I see nobody on the road," said Alice.

"I only wish I had such eyes," the King remarked in a fretful tone. "To be able to see Nobody! And at that distance too! Why, it's as much as I can do to see real people, by this light!"


Tolkien Forever
Gondor

Mar 4 2008, 12:55am

Post #65 of 74 (120 views)
Shortcut
Huh? [In reply to] Can't Post

Sounds like a bunch of semanitical theological double talk........
That's why I skip Tolkien's Letter's on faith - they're so difficult to follow (plus I don't agree with his 'Mary' theology, lol).

In other words, JRRT thought Christ was GOD.

I wonder at what time in CS Lewis' life this changed his conception of Christianity

Was it before or after Lewis was 'born again?
This apparently caused a falling away between the two & they hardly (or never) saw each ever in the final ten years of Lewis' life.


a.s.
Valinor


Mar 4 2008, 1:17am

Post #66 of 74 (123 views)
Shortcut
I really suggest you read a little bit more [In reply to] Can't Post

It is far too simplistic to say Lewis and Tolkien "fell away" over the Lewis' being "born again". I'd suggest you read Carpenter's biography of Tolkien, and/or his bio of the group "The Inklings", for basic information. I do think there was tension between Tolkien and Lewis over Lewis' specific Christian writings, and I reviewed a Mythlore article recently here that discussed a possible falling out over "Letters to Malcolm".

However your feelings on the subject, Lewis himself credited the talk with Tolkien in 1931 with his conversion to Christianity. If you are interested, his letters have been published, and he refers to his conversion in Surprised by Joy (and probably elsewhere, I haven't read all of Lewis' works).

a.s.

"an seileachan"

"Just look along the road, and tell me if you can see either of them."

"I see nobody on the road," said Alice.

"I only wish I had such eyes," the King remarked in a fretful tone. "To be able to see Nobody! And at that distance too! Why, it's as much as I can do to see real people, by this light!"


Elizabeth
Valinor


Mar 4 2008, 2:52am

Post #67 of 74 (112 views)
Shortcut
There were several issues [In reply to] Can't Post

involved in the straining of relations between Tolkien and Lewis, but there is no doubt that the conversation in question (in 1931) was the proximate cause of Lewis' conversion.

Unfortunately (from Tolkien's perspective), Lewis elected to join the Anglican church rather than becoming Catholic. Tolkien didn't care for the obvious allegories and mixed cultural references in the Narnia tales, and may have resented the fact that Lewis was churning them out readily while he suffered so long over LotR. Tolkien was further upset by Lewis' marriage to a divorcée.

The discussion that a.s. refers to is here. And I second her recommendation regarding Carpenter's books, they're excellent.




New grandson of Elizabeth, b. 2/25/2008


Elizabeth is the TORnsib formerly known as 'erather'


sador
Half-elven

Mar 4 2008, 7:13am

Post #68 of 74 (112 views)
Shortcut
I'm breaking two rules here [In reply to] Can't Post

Interfering in a thread that has become too long already, and loging in from work, after skimming this thread on a coffee-break which has become too long already.

But Satan's name does have a simple meaning.

In modern Hebrew, the word 'Satan' stands for 'Hater', as one of the more rare, and more ominuous words to express this sense.
But even in modern Hebrew, it does keep the original sense of the word, which is 'obstacle'. If you have a bilingaul version of the Bible (sorry, for you it would be the Old Testament), check Numbers 22;22, Samuel I 29;4, Kings I 5;18, and Zacharias 3;1 (in which you have the name as well), among others. In my opinion, that's also the true meaning of the well's name in Genesis 26;21 and Ezra 4;6, although many consider the word 'Sitna' there to stand for hate. In the book of Psalms, however, that word is usually used for 'hater', arguably as a metaphor.

I could enlarge on that, but I've used too much time that isn't really mine already.

"lesser men with spades might have served you better" - Boromir


Tolkien Forever
Gondor

Mar 4 2008, 6:18pm

Post #69 of 74 (107 views)
Shortcut
Years Later [In reply to] Can't Post

A.S., I am referring to YEARS later in Lewis & Tolkien's life....

Tolkiien plainly states in one of his later Letters upon Lewis' death that he had not seen him in ten years - this would be around the mid 60's, whenever Lewis died.

Quoting 1931 as a major turning point in someone's spiritual journey who becomes 'born again' years later just doesn't hold water as anyone who has become born again will tell you that most prior theological technobabble is pure BS & has little or no merit & infact the Spirit of God then often takes years to rearrange that intellectual nonsense we've aquired......


a.s.
Valinor


Mar 4 2008, 6:48pm

Post #70 of 74 (105 views)
Shortcut
I have no idea what you're talking about, sorry [In reply to] Can't Post

I thought I had answered your questions, but apparently not.

Tolkien was directly responsible for Lewis' conversion to Christianity, as attested to by Lewis himself, in 1931. That was what LEWIS said himself about himself, not what I said about Lewis.

They did fall out "years later", but I have never read it was over a concept called "being born again", nor do I know if Church of England members at that time, in that place, used that terminology, nor do I know if Lewis ever did. He very well could have, I am confessing my own lack of knowledge and nothing else. I am stating that I DO NOT KNOW EXACTLY what caused the falling out, but I am agreeing with you that it probably had something to do with religious differences and, indeed, someone has already linked to an article I reviewed here recently which, if you had bothered to look, talks about this concept.

So you are arguing with my agreeing with you, which is confusing.


Quote

anyone who has become born again will tell you that most prior theological technobabble is pure BS & has little or no merit & infact the Spirit of God then often takes years to rearrange that intellectual nonsense we've aquired



I will assume you really did not mean to insult those members of this board whose religion does not include a concept called "being born again".

a.s.

"an seileachan"

"Just look along the road, and tell me if you can see either of them."

"I see nobody on the road," said Alice.

"I only wish I had such eyes," the King remarked in a fretful tone. "To be able to see Nobody! And at that distance too! Why, it's as much as I can do to see real people, by this light!"


N.E. Brigand
Half-elven


Mar 4 2008, 7:45pm

Post #71 of 74 (111 views)
Shortcut
Lewis wasn't born again years later. [In reply to] Can't Post

His return to Christianity, after a period of being an atheist and then a deist, happened in 1931. As others have noted, Lewis himself identified the turning point as an evening he spent with Tolkien and Hugo Dyson, and his description of that experience does not reveal it as "theological techno-babble". Lewis was an ardent Christian apologist by the end of the 1930s.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!

Join us Feb. 25-Mar. 2 for "The Bridge of Khazad-dûm".


Owlyross
Rohan


Mar 5 2008, 5:10pm

Post #72 of 74 (88 views)
Shortcut
Gollum isn't evil [In reply to] Can't Post

Twisted, yes, Corrupt, probably, but evil, definitely not. Unless Frodo was also evil...

It's impossible to see the nature of good and evil in black and white terms. As with everything in life, there are many many shades of grey.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
Benjamin Franklin
The world is a tragedy to those who feel, but a comedy to those who think.
Horace Walpole (1717 - 1797)


Farawyn
Rohan


Mar 5 2008, 6:17pm

Post #73 of 74 (80 views)
Shortcut
Agreed. [In reply to] Can't Post

Gollum was insane, not evil.

*************
Disclaimer: The author of this message does not guarantee correct grammar, spelling or English usage. No responsibility can be accepted for the use of this message as a guide to written English.
**************
Discuss:
Photobucket




Tolkien Forever
Gondor

Mar 9 2008, 1:59am

Post #74 of 74 (102 views)
Shortcut
Gollum Evil? [In reply to] Can't Post

So Gollum isn't evil?

And I guess either is Adolph Hitler?

And a murderer is a victim of his mean parent's upbringing of course......

This type of mindset makes a victim out of the perpretraitor.

PJ played this up in his "We did it once (killed)" line Gollum speaks in the movie to make it seem like the only time Gollum ever killed was to get the Ring from Deagle, when the truth in the book was that he regularly killed & ate Goblins & even 'found cradles' & allegedly 'drank blood' after leaving the Misty Mountains in search of 'Baggins'.
Plus Gandalf states plainly that the Ring had given Gollum a measure of power according to his innate disposition to begin with (paraphrase), whereas to Bilbo it had done less harm as he had begun his ownership of the Ring with the pity of sparing Gollum's life......

First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All
 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.