 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Is Lord of Rings offensive to fundament. too
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: Art Thieme Date: 29 Nov 01 - 06:04 PM I've always thought that Lord Of The Rings was a direct parallel of World War 2. Tolkien denied it but during that War was when he was writing it I believe. Bombs were falling on his London and the Dark Lord, if ever there was one, was in Berlin. Orcs were running all over Europe too. The Nazgul were abroad. Often I did school folk shows for kids raised during the Viet Nam era, kids whose parents had taught them ALL war was to be avoided at all costs. They'd all read L.O.T.R. I used to show them that there just might be a war that could be, pragmatically and morally, or at least phiolosophically, correct (even if not spiritually good) to participate in. I'd equate those two wars and then sing the "I Hate War And So Does Elanore--and we won't be safe 'til everyone is dead..." song (tune: "Jesse James") and then do "Ruben James" and "Round and Round Hitler's Grave" (tune: "Old Joe Clark") to show how someone (the Almanac Singers) could change their minds in different circumstances when presented with a new reality. Art Thieme |
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: Murray MacLeod Date: 29 Nov 01 - 07:43 PM Sharon, Alex et al. sorry, but that is how the deal goes down. I personally do not believe I have huge trouble with the whole concept of "belief" , but that is the stark reality of Christianity. Sometimes I feel that Blaise Pascal had it right, like, "what the hell, you are gambling what, sixty, seventy years against eternity? Hey it's a good bet" Somehow I just can't make that bet. Murray |
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: Naemanson Date: 29 Nov 01 - 07:55 PM I am worried about a trend in the above posts. Several of them have made comments that they don't care what the fundamentalists think. This may be an error. When you don't pay attention to what the fundamentalists are doing you could end up with an Iran or Afghanistan. The religious right includes plenty of people who would happily deny women the right to work (or anything else) if they could somehow circumvent that pesky Constitution. They have their homophobia, their concern about family values and all the proof that they need that this country is going to the dogs if they don't take action. Be very afraid if theyever come up with a charismatic leader who can pull them all together. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: Don Firth Date: 29 Nov 01 - 09:57 PM Good point, Naemanson, and all too true. This is why I get my neck in a bow when people start saying "Christians say -- " and then they quote somebody like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, or someone else of that stripe. Those bozos don't speak for me -- or a lot of other people. When people of any religion or denomination get the half-assed idea that God has called them to be soldiers in a holy war, crusade, jihad, or whatever they want to call it, look out!! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: Clinton Hammond Date: 29 Nov 01 - 10:01 PM Constitution? I don't have a constituion.... But I do see yer point... ;-) "this country is going to the dog" May I remind you that the internet is INTERNATIONAL... broaden yer scope eh! heh! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 29 Nov 01 - 10:22 PM Perhaps, Arty T. the question should be.....
Such questions two years ago...Would Have offended thee
They always offend me!
Where is the MUSIC connection - come on post it, the great songs etc.?????
However, to answer your question -
The modern world holds a TREMENDOUS debt to Tolken because his personal invitation to C.S. Lewis to attend "philosophical" discussions which, in turn, led to the conversion of one of this centuries greatest Christian philosophers and appologists. Tolken was ALREADY a CHRISTIAN
JOE....another call for a breathalizer on the MC!!
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: Mary in Kentucky Date: 29 Nov 01 - 10:31 PM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: Murray MacLeod Date: 29 Nov 01 - 10:41 PM What is an "appologist"? Enquiring minds need to know. Murray |
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: ddw Date: 29 Nov 01 - 11:16 PM Alex, Don't know if you saw it, but PBS ran a very interesting program about four or five years ago tracing the Christian aspects of the Nazis. They did borrow a lot of imagry from Norse mythology, but they also had "spiritual camps" for their leaders, particularly the SS officers, which were heavily steeped in Christianity. A good portion of the "teaching," it seems, was to use the old saw that "it was the Jews who killed Christ" to justify some of the party's worst atrocities. It's been quite a while since I saw it, so I'm fuzzy on the details, but their interpretation was that the Nazis were just as based in Christianity as the KKK and some of the more militant militia groups. I may have that program on tape. I'll look over the weekend and post more on it if I can find it. cheers, david
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: Art Thieme Date: 29 Nov 01 - 11:33 PM Garg,
I generally work with WHAT IS rather than what the ideal would be. (If that makes me a politician, so be it.) All is often not as I'd prefer it -- same as you. I'd prefer more music threads that I could add to if what they want happens to be what I've got to give back. But if that ain't happening, and there is a topic opened in another thread---rather than CREEPING away from their topic, I, for once, chose to create a separate thread that had a question that had occurred to me as a tangent to the other. On that same tack, I have NEVER EVER seen a folkie adaptation for any of the "songs" of J.R.R. Tolkien that spoke to me. Michael Flanders and Donald Swan did an entire LP on Angel Records of Swan's tunes for those lyrics. It didn't make it for me at all, but it may have succeeded admirably where our British friends are concerned. I do wonder what they might've felt about the efforts of Flanders and Swann as regards those lyrics?!?! I do suspect, Mr. Gargoyle, that it comes down to, "IF YA CAN'T BEAT 'EM, JOIN 'EM." This ain't brain surgery. It's folk music, for Coyote's sake. And goin' with the proverbial flow is much better for my, and maybe your, blood pressure. ;-) Art Thieme
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: Little Hawk Date: 29 Nov 01 - 11:41 PM Mrrzy, Mousethief, et al .... One thing the Nazis were not (generally) was atheists. They were a very mystical order indeed, especially at the highest levels, convinced that they were ordained to usher in a new civilization, and that they were serving divine power in so doing. Some of Goebbel's last diary entries indicated that as far as he felt, if the Nazi system fell it would mean not only their own destruction, but the end of the entire Cosmos, the collapse of the whole destiny and future of humanity. That's how far out some of those people at the top were in the Third Reich, and that is not atheism. It's a type of deeply religious insanity. I don't doubt that Hitler had a low view of the conventional Christianity of his day, and considered it weak, but he had his own theories about higher purposes. He was dabbling in some very odd occult stuff, deriving from many ancient traditions, and he somehow mixed it all together in a bizarre way to support his paranoid state of mind, and saw himself as the one who would bring in a superior spiritual civilization (but NOT a kinder, gentler one!). He was envisioning a warrior civilization ruled by the new elite, the Superman, as he saw it, that would crush and enslave the weaker elements in the human race. It was utter madness in the clothing of supposedly divine purpose. I'm sure that the rank and file of German soldiers for the most part thought of themselves as conventional Christians. They certainly believed they were representing Christian civilization, especially when fighting the officially atheistic Communist forces of the Soviet Union. Every German soldier in the regular Army had the words "Gott Mit Uns" on his silver belt buckle (God is with us). Interestingly enough, however, the SS troops do not appear to have had this slogan on their buckles, but a different one! (checked reference materials on World War II, and I can't quite make out what it says on the SS buckles, but it doesn't say Gott Mit Uns) I'd be very curious to know what it did say...the fact is, the SS was expected to be loyal to one and one thing alone...their Fuhrer! (A grisly new religion in the making.) The intentions of Himmler and Hitler were to eventually replace the Wermacht (regular army) with the SS Divisions. Hitler did not trust the traditional German Army one bit. He considered them to be wedded to outdated concepts of honour, and to be therefore weak and undependable. He was partly right about that (from his point of view)...some of them tried to assassinate him, and it's a pity they didn't succeed. My own feeling is that the top Nazis were engaged in extreme mysticism and what could be termed "the black arts", and that they combined it willy-nilly with Christianity or any other religious tradition that they could conveniently use to flesh it out and achieve control over the German people. They were spiritually motivated, but in the most dark and destructive manner imaginable. Like all maniacal destroyers, they had convinced themselves that they were doing it for the most laudable reasons...people are great rationalizers. I would say the same of the Spanish conquistadors, who in the name of Christ (so they said) committed incredible atrocities all over Central and South America...mostly in pursuit of gold. Anyone can call himself a Christian or call himself an atheist....the question is, what is his hidden agenda? When confronted with a deranged killer, I don't much care at the time whether he calls himself a Christian or an atheist. He's just a deranged killer with pretensions, that's all. I have always felt that the Lord of the Rings was an allegorical tale reflecting the World War II conflict, and the Dark Lord was definitely in Berlin...and there was another one in Moscow too. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 30 Nov 01 - 12:09 AM Mr. Art
There are "lyrics" within Tolkien...but I do concur, like you, I could never connect to the muse and turn them into a tune. Something is absent.
However, Rage AGAINST the Storm There is only ONE DT/MC and if we permit the infidels to over-run its ramparts....there is no other, there is no retreat, there is only Madonna/Cat clones ad-nausium. STAND FIRM!!!
Sincerely, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: Joe Offer Date: 30 Nov 01 - 01:00 AM Gargoyle, I think it's only "fundamentalist" Mudcatters who would object to a thread like this. It's downright fascinating. I'm quite relieved to see that others think I don't have to adhere to Murray's definition if I want to call myself a Christian. Hell, even Jesus Christ might have trouble fitting those criteria. You know, I don't know if it's fair to make a general statement that Fundamentalist or Conservative Christians would object to Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings. You could say that certain xenophobic Christians do such-and-such, but I think that's about as far as you can go. There are many Christians who are conservative in their beliefs, but they can be very reasonable in the application of those beliefs to real life. Wherever you go, you're going to find idiots. There are fundamentalist idiots, liberal idiots, Catholic idiots, and pagan idiots - and it's unfair to judge any of these groups by the small number of outspoken idiots who pretend to speak for them. Yes, there are Christians who have trouble with just about any sort of literature other than the Bible, and they generally object to viewing the Bible as literature. I suppose they're looking for answers to their questions, and aren't comfortable with "grey areas." More exactly, I guess you could say they think they've found answers to their questions, and they have a fear of being "confused by the facts" if they are exposed to other information. As we've witnessed with "Harry Potter" and even with the "Last Temptation of Christ," many of these people won't even view a movie for themselves before they join the protest line. Do we take these people seriously, or do we simply write them off as "idiots"? I dunno. I hate to write anybody off. Incredibly stupid people can also be incredibly dangerous - but I don't think we need to get parnoid about them. I also like to believe that people I once considered "itiots" can often turn out ot be quite remarkable. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: Murray MacLeod Date: 30 Nov 01 - 01:26 AM Joe, Christianity is all about FAITH. It has NOTHING to do with rationalization. (Wish I knew how to do Gargoyle's big script. Minus his ubiquitous spelling mistakes, of course) Murray |
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: GUEST,Seonaid Date: 30 Nov 01 - 02:21 AM Re Hitler & mysticism -- There's a fascinating little pamphlet called "I Saw Hitler Make Black Magic," written by the late Thane Walker, a psychic who was asked by Hitler asked to join the mind-magic group at Eagle's Nest in the late 30's (Thane told him to blow it out his moustache, and ended up in Nuremburg prison). The booklet was published by a group in Los Angeles called The Prosperos; copies of it might be around somewhere. By the way, on the other side of the channel during WWII, the British occult gang was fighting for the Allies by doing something akin to what Katherine Kurtz described in her book, "Lammas Night." [Hey, you Fundamentalists, don't look at me -- my granny was a Baptist deacon!] |
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: Joe Offer Date: 30 Nov 01 - 02:22 AM Faith, yes, Murray - but that doesn't mean buying into somebody's itemized agenda. Many believers look on faith as a loving relationship with God, not signing onto a laundry list of beliefs. I'll buy most of your list (with certain nuances added), but not the idea of people being born sinful. Babies are born into a world full of evil - but you'll never convince me that babies are evil in themselves. What you've listed is pretty close to the list in the Fundamentals of Christian Belief - those principles are a pretty good definition of fundamentalist Christianity, but not of ALL Christianity. Some of us have a different perspective, and we pray and go to church and read our Bibles, and do our best to help our neighbor. But what's rationalization got to do with it? -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: Don Firth Date: 30 Nov 01 - 02:23 AM 1. -- Murray, what you say about Christian beliefs may be true of a small percentage of Christians now. But not the majority. And it might have been true in some aspects historically. But not recently. Christianity is monotheistic, but it is not monolithic, which is why there are so many different denominations. Overgeneralization can't help but miss the mark. 2. -- I think Joe just fed us a reality sandwich. Well said, Joe. 3. -- I flipped on the tube a little while ago and watched a program on the making of The Lord of the Rings. Interviews with the cast and the director, and they showed a few scenes. It looks good. It looks very good! 4. -- I'll be interested to see how (if) they handle the songs. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: Big Mick Date: 30 Nov 01 - 02:46 AM I admit to not reading every post before I wrote this. Garg..........nice to see you in your curmudgeonly role without the rank, base attacks. Now go take your medicine and get me a Guinness on your way back through the kitchen. Joe..........loved the fundamentalist Mudcatters remark.......my sinuses won't recover until morning. I live in an area which is the home to Calvin College and is known for being very conservative and "fundamentalist". It is also known for chasing Kath Westra off to the East coast, hence making me have to love her from afar...........LOL. As you might guess, the Public Pulse section of the paper is full of analysis by these good folks about why the rest of us, the great unwashed are all going to go to hell and so are our children, for watching this. In fact, my "almost 10 years old, DAD!!!" daughter was accosted by one of her classmates and told she was going to hell because The Bible says that is what happens to people that see the movie or read the book. Fortunately the formidable Miss Ciara has been raised to know ignorance when she sees it, and dismissed this little friend. I guess I want to ask these self righeous and IMHO, idiotic people if they ever read The Arabian Nights, Norse, Roman, or Greek classic mythology, or for that matter comic books, when they were kids. It is a work of fiction for crying out loud. It seems to me it is much more important to teach the wee ones to live honorably and by the codes that we each choose to live by. It is much more important to teach that being judgemental is a fundamental sin in itself. I am not smart enough to understand what makes The Greatest One upset enough to not let me into the clubhouse. But I am smart enough to know that it is more important to live according to the precepts that I have chosen to live by, and to teach my kids the difference between fantasy and reality. One of our jobs as bards of the modern age, is to expose hypocrisy and idiocy. Where I live, I see a lot of it. Time to go to bed. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: Murray MacLeod Date: 30 Nov 01 - 03:11 AM Eationalixation is as irrelevant to Christuanity as it was to the Taliban, Joe. I have played gigs in Unitarian churches (during) "services" and I mean, its rationalization gone mad. My take on the matter is, accept the "truth" or reject it. ME I reject it. But pleeeze don't go around trying to tailor it to your own personal requirements. Doesn't compute. I know what the Christian doctrine says. So do you. Murray |
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: Don Firth Date: 30 Nov 01 - 03:17 AM Things have changed a bit since the days of St. Augustine. (Goin' to bed now) Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: John P Date: 30 Nov 01 - 08:26 AM I find it interesting that the so-called Christians who are so offended by Harry Potter and the LOTR are, in effect, saying they believe magic and wizards and such are real. It seems they are actually giving power to the things they hate. Not real bright, these fundies. As for a definition of Christianity, I wish our born again President would pull his head out of the vengeful portions of the Old Testament and read the bits about "Thou shalt not kill" and "Love thy enemy" and "The greatest of these is love". John Peekstok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: John P Date: 30 Nov 01 - 08:43 AM Gargoyle, There are at least 85 active threads about music right now. Go read them. Don't you have anything better to do with your time than to open threads that are obviously not about music just to bitch about the fact that they are not about music? Get a life, man. Or, if you really want to be part of this thread, how about a discussion of the religious overtones vs. the magical nature of many of Tolkien's poems, and how they might be percieved by fundamentalist Christians? I can see you are having fun with HTML, but your posts are starting to look like Dr. Bronner's soap bottles or flyers put out by whacko numerologists. Most of us can understand your points without the amateur graphical emphasis. John Peekstok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: Geoph Date: 30 Nov 01 - 08:46 AM For those interested in the "theology" behind LOTR, read Tolkein's "The Silmarillion" (I think I got that right) which deals with the history of early Middle Earth all the way back to its creation. I am looking forward to the movie, as it appears from the trailers that they got it right this time. However, those purists looking for a word-for-word transcription of the "Fellowship" may be disappointed since that is very difficult when putting a book onto the screen. I think the main problem with the early attempts, besides the fact that they were done very cheaply, is that they treated the subject as a children's story rather than the epic adventure it really is. Too much Disney influence in our culture. Oops, is that a fundamentalist opinion? d8^) Geoph |
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: John P Date: 30 Nov 01 - 08:52 AM Re: music for Tolkien lyrics: I thought the music by Flanders and Swan was terrible. It was classical art music. The lyrics are strongly rhythmic in a very primal way and the music missed that entirely. If you've never read Tolkien's poetry out loud, you should try it. I've only written music to one Tolkien song, "The Man in the Moon". I thought it worked pretty well, and have always intended to write more, but I always seem to have other more immediately practical projects in hand. John Peekstok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: mousethief Date: 30 Nov 01 - 10:49 AM Murray, let me get this straight: you aren't a Christian, but you have appropriated to yourself the right to tell everyone here what Christianity consists of? Talk about hubris. Get off your soapbox and go read some of the church fathers BESIDES Augustine and his croneys. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: Naemanson Date: 30 Nov 01 - 12:26 PM Alex, I'm afraid I have to side with Murray on this. The writings of the church fathers (not mothers?) tend to be an individualistic interpretation and rationalization of the basic document. Regarding the actions of the US versus the "Evil Ones" Mr. Bush needs to reread that section of the Bible that says "Thou Shalt Not Kill." There are no subclauses or exceptions. I think we have an oppotunity to look for a new way to pursue justice. We should look for a way other than bombs and machine guns. However, that would not be as politically convenient as the bombs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: Geoph Date: 30 Nov 01 - 12:51 PM Ahem, Of course, immediately after that part where "Thou shalt not kill" was inscribed onto the tablets along with the other 14, oops, make that 9 commandments, Moses came down from the mountain and immediately commenced to killing all of those who became Golden Calf worshippers in his absence. Geoph |
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: Art Thieme Date: 30 Nov 01 - 01:27 PM Garg, I'll rage against the storm when it's important enough to warrsnt that. -- Like how very similar to a moron George Bush has turned out to actually be after, first, stealing an American election, and then pulling crap very much like Joe Stalin and creating a seeming dictatorship here that threatens to bipass the Constitution, Congress and the judicial system (not to mention We The People in order to set up on-the-spot kangaroo courts that hang people as soon as their self-manufactured tribunals come to their instant verdicts of guilty. Some things are important. Folk stuff, as much as I've dedicated myself to it over the years while striving to make myself a decent sized fish in our little pond, is only a temporary collection of water in a low spot under a viaduct when compared to other more real problems that threaten to swamp us. Art Thieme |
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: mousethief Date: 30 Nov 01 - 06:37 PM Naem: And Augustine isn't? Puh-leeze. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 30 Nov 01 - 10:23 PM Dear Geoph the Biblical scholar.
The Sixth Commandment does NOT read : 'Thou shalt not kill'. The correct translation from the Hebrew or the Greek is: 'Thou shalt not murder'.
In the Latin Vulgate translation. The author of that translation, Saint Jerome (died in 420), spent much of his career in the Land of Israel, where he consulted frequently with Jewish scholars whose interpretations he often cites with great respect. Even the Septuagint, the old Greek translation of the Bible, translated the commandment with a word that means "murder" rather than "kill." St. Augustine, basing himself on the standard translations, made it clear that the commandment does not extend to wars or capital punishment that are explicitly ordained by God.
Try these sites for explanations of this greatly misunderstood commandment. The agreement is plain amongst Jews, Catholics and Protestants, the meaning is "MURDER."
http://www.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/Shokel/001102_ThouShaltNotMurder.html
http://dcwi.com/~faithch/sermons/1998/98.3.1.htm
It is clear within the Bible that there times for killing and war.
Your Humble Servant,
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 30 Nov 01 - 10:27 PM Art, Joe and John..... You are right it IS a good thread.
Sorry the html offends. Learned it here. Will continue. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: Coyote Breath Date: 01 Dec 01 - 01:29 AM as a fun-duh-mentalist christian I am offended by all the above except for spaw's contribution. Was that REALLY the result of meds? As a cheese-head, I have relatives with a small dairy farm near Burlington who fit your description of "paw" I wonder if we're cuzzins?!? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: Geoph Date: 01 Dec 01 - 04:49 AM "Dear Geoph the Biblical scholar. The Sixth Commandment does NOT read : 'Thou shalt not kill'." The correct translation from the Hebrew or the Greek is: 'Thou shalt not murder'. Gargoyle: Thank you for pointing out the accurate translation. Actually, I am quite aware of the veracity of the above statement. In fact, I almost pointed that out in my post, but was too lazy to support the statement and declined. And besides, I'm not particularly interested in debating theology at this point in my life. Finally, its much more fun to come in with a quick quip and run. Geoph |
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: John P Date: 01 Dec 01 - 07:55 AM Coyote Breath, As a fundamentalist Christian, are you offended by Harry Potter and/or The Lord of the Rings? If so, why? And if so, do you think the fact that they offend you means that others should be prevented from reading or viewing them? John Peekstok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: Dave the Gnome Date: 01 Dec 01 - 10:07 AM I mentioned on the other thread and I'll mention it again here. I would challenge anyone to read the books within the Bible and those within the Silmarilion and then say honestly which they think is the accepted religion and which is the work of fantasy. Given long enough I reckon someone could come up with enough 'historical proof' for the Silmarilion as well! No-one has mentioned Denis Wheatley yet either. As a teenager I read all of em (Think they are p"£$ poor now but I was only young then:)). 'The devil rides out' and 'They used dark forces' are the ones I remember - full of Satanism, Witchcraft and Wizardry - but with a Christianity always wins type motto. The later was Nazi/Satanist/Jewish/Christian twoddle at it's complete worse if I remember rightly! What do the fanatics (they are not Christian, or Muslim, or any other religion in my mind just nutters) think of those? Are they OK because the 'goodies' always win? Makes me wonder how these bigots work! Cheers
Dave the Gnome |
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: Art Thieme Date: 01 Dec 01 - 10:21 AM Getting interested in things theological late in life or on one's deathbed is a bit like cramming for finals to my mind. Panic cramming rarely ever does the trick (so to speak). It's like trying to convince yourself you weren't gay all those decades after you've become impotent and Viagra don't work for ya. Art |
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: Coyote Breath Date: 01 Dec 01 - 11:28 AM John P, naw in reality, very little actually offends me. I am a fun(duh)mentalist human. Or something. And never, never, never, would I EVER try to stop anyone from exploring, or learning, or experiencing, anything (well, as long as it's not harmful and inappropriate to OTHERS)! I love LoTR and I'm sure that when I go to see the Harry Potter movie I'll enjoy it as much as it's artistry allows (I mean if its a rotten film, I won't enjoy it, cinematically speaking.) I have strong beliefs or rather I should say I have strong opinions about many things. I was Joking, fergawdsake. I feel (look out, here comes an opinion!) that there is too much ranting going on in this world. spaw's thing was a giggle to me. CB PS I just sent my boxed edition(s) of JRRT's 'Hobbit and Lord of the Rings to my daughter Molly who remembers fondly my reading them to her and her younger sister, lo these many years ago She wants to read them to her daughter. I doubt I'll get them back (sigh) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: catspaw49 Date: 01 Dec 01 - 11:34 AM CB, I'm glad you got a chuckle and I thank you for saying so. I agree there is too much ranting and not enough laughing. So if it gave anyone a giggle or two, then I'm happy. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: Coyote Breath Date: 01 Dec 01 - 12:22 PM hey spaw!I just figured out why I'm sitting here on a Saturday morning jumping back and forth through the Mudcat (well besides I love this site and I have a near cord of firewood to split). It reminds me of the old radio days when we kids would sit around the Fairbanks-Morse listening to "Lets Pretend" and "Grand Central Station" sheesh! CB |
|
Subject: RE: BS: IsL. OfRings offensive to fundamenta.too From: Don Firth Date: 01 Dec 01 - 01:39 PM W.C. Fields was anything but a religious man. When he was on his deathbed, someone walked into the room and found him leafing through the Bible. "Bill, I'm surprised," said the visitor. "I thought you didn't believe in that sort of thing." Fields answered, "Just looking for loopholes." Don Firth |
|
Subject: Lord of Rings offensive to fundamentalists? From: Joe Offer Date: 01 Dec 01 - 07:19 PM Yeah, I suppose it's not a good idea to look to the Church Fathers for definitive statements, even though there is great value in their writings. They were theologians, and theologians are likely to have their own opinions. Theology is not doctrine - it attempts to bring about an understanding of doctrine, within the context of the current age. That understanding helps people make the faith their own, so that their faith is not just an obedient acceptance of a list of "facts" they are required to believe. As I see it in this context, "rationalization" is using intelligence to find loopholes in matters of faith, while "theology" is using intelligence to find understanding in matters of faith. The works of the Church Fathers were theology, not rationalization. Faith does not require abandonment of intelligence. Many religious traditions encourage intelligent questioning and discussion of doctrine. It's only the fundamentalists who are required to check their brains at the door. As for doctrine, which is the official teaching of a religious group, I think I'd rely on the Nicene Creed of AD 325 as a fairly comprehensive statement. It is shared by most Christian groups. That's not the case with "the Fundamentals" that Murray cited, which come from a series of pamphlets published with oil company money in the early 20th century. "The Fundamentals" are the source of the name "fundamentalism" and they give a pretty good summary of conservative Christian belief. "Mainstream" Christians have trouble with the fundamentals. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Lord of Rings offensive to fundament. too From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 01 Dec 01 - 09:18 PM Boy, this thread has wandered. It's not a thread, it's a tapestry. To go back to where it started, when the question was about FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIANS, and then wandered into "Christians," then on to Nazis, I just want to add a simple point. When one of my sons was in High School, he wrote a term paper on the Christian imagery in Lord of the Rings. I thought he made many excellent points... enough that it is one of the few school papers that I saved. I read the Hobbit and the whole trilogy to my sons TWICE when they were kids, and as a christian, I didn't find anything even mildly bothersome. When you start talking about "Christians," it's like talking about "folksingers." Generalizations are comforting, but don't mean a whole lot. Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Lord of Rings offensive to fundament. too From: Mark Clark Date: 02 Dec 01 - 01:26 AM Christian imagery—that's an interesting idea. Several Tolkien characters are given god-like powers, which character would you say is closest to a creator in the Judeo-Christian sense—the Father person in the Triune Godhead? I'm guessing that Gandalf would be regarded as a “Christ” figure because of his entry into the netherworld at the hands of the balrog and his subsequent reappearance in a glorified form. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Lord of Rings offensive to fundament. too From: Joe Offer Date: 02 Dec 01 - 04:17 AM I dunno. I read The Hobbit and the trilogy when I was a Catholic seminary student, and didn't get any Christian imagery out of it at all. It was just a good story. We had to watch Bergman films when I was in the seminary, and then there was all this discussion about characters who were Christ-figures in the movies. I thought the movies were boring, but I was in the minority. I didn't get the Christ-figure stuff at all. Now, Ingrid Bergman is another story. She was far more interesting. I guess that's why did didn't make it into the priesthood, huh? Yes, but we'll always have Paris... -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Lord of Rings offensive to fundament. too From: CarolC Date: 02 Dec 01 - 05:44 AM I would think Gandalf is more of a druidic (old religion) type of figure, closer to a Merlin perhaps, than to anything found in the Christian mythology. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Lord of Rings offensive to fundament. too From: Mark Clark Date: 02 Dec 01 - 09:45 AM Well, sure. I didn't mean to indicate I thought Gandalf was a Christ figure necessarily, I was just supposing—if one found Christian imagery in “Lord of the Rings”—that Gandalf would be the most likely candidate. Arguably the most god-like inhabitant of Middle Earth is Tom Bombadil. He seems to have more absolute power than any other character. So much so, that he simply doesn't care what the other characters are doing. He leaves them to play their games, secure in the knowledge that nothing they do will have any effect on him. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Lord of Rings offensive to fundament. too From: Tiger Date: 02 Dec 01 - 12:05 PM If it bothers you, don't read it. Next act! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Lord of Rings offensive to fundament. too From: Joe Offer Date: 02 Dec 01 - 12:12 PM I read Tolkien about the same time I read The Beowulf - Tolkien was an Old English scholar (or was it Middle English?), and there certainly was a connection there. I didn't find any religious connotations, and I'm glad I didn't. I was reading for fun, and every volume was sheer pleasure. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Lord of Rings offensive to fundament. too From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 02 Dec 01 - 12:23 PM My feeling on all this would be that the Lord of the Rings is shot through with imagery and and patterns of thought that echo traditional Catholicism much more strongly than other varieties of Christianity. Which is what you would expect of a Catholic, of Tolkien's generation especially.
So for example the hymn to Elebereth is very reminiscent of Catholic hymns to Our Lady
Snow-white! Snow-white! O Lady clear!
Gilthoniel! O Elbereth!
O Elbereth! Gilthoniel! Compare tyhis to the mediaeval Salve Regina:
Hail, holy Queen, Mother of Mercy!
Turn, then, most gracious advocate, Or again compare it to what I think is the loveliest of the Mary hymns, written in the 18th century:
Hail, Queen of Heaven, the ocean star,
Sojourners in this vale of tears, To save myself typing out the Elbereth hymn I used a search engine to find someone who had already done that, and found this essay about this very thing, which makes interesting reading (though I'd distance myself from some of the writer's views).
And in relation to Tolkien and "fundamentalists", I would expect that these very aspects of his writing would in themselves be sufficient reason for some varieties of "fundamentalists" to see the book as unwholesome and dangerous.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Lord of Rings offensive to fundament. too From: catspaw49 Date: 02 Dec 01 - 12:41 PM This should surprise no one, but to be the odd man out here, I really never enjoyed Tolkein. I read it because it was the thing everyone was doing and I never had a clue about any of it. My apologies to one and all, but the stuff just seemed completely screwed and I never saw the point. The movie looks equally weird, but cinematic in the extreme so it should do well. I feel the same about the Bible too so I'm a equal opps dumbshit and adding LotR to the Twain quote pretty well sums it up: "It's not the parts of the Bible and Lord of the Rings that I don't understand that bother me, it's the parts I DO understand." Spaw |