Tolkien and conservative Catholicism
#21
inked Wrote:...THE NEW CHRISTENDOM by Philip Jenkins. Your data points are in error. Your opinions are your own. However, Christianity is growing at a prodigious rate worldwide. Your backyard may differ. You need to broaden your scope.

Apologies, I had not considered the growth in Africa, Asia and South America. Thank you for correcting me. Nevertheless, in terms of UK (OK the UK is a small bit of the world), attendance and belief is absolutely on a downward spiral.

And the fact that religious belief is growing fastest where education and knowledge are weakest says it all and is nothing for this world to be proud of.

Cheers


Padster
Reply
#22
Padster Wrote:And the fact that religious belief is growing fastest where education and knowledge are weakest says it all and is nothing for this world to be proud of.

Cheers


Padster
Or, alternatively, that some people are too clever for the own good.
"What song the Sirens sang, or what name Achilles assumed when he hid himself among women, though puzzling questions are not beyond conjecture." - Sir Thomas Browne, Religio Medici
Reply
#23
Reply
#24
Padster Wrote:Apologies, I had not considered the growth in Africa, Asia and South America. ...
And the fact that religious belief is growing fastest where education and knowledge are weakest says it all and is nothing for this world to be proud of.

That could be read as an indictment of religious belief, or of the state & nature of "education and knowledge" in Europe, North America, & other places outside Africa, Asia, & South America.

BTW, I'd never heard Asia, particularly, was "weak" in education & knowledge, anyway.

With regard to the OP & the questions posed about any hypothetical relationship between Vatican II, JRRT's loyalty to the RC Church, and JRRT's views on subcreation, I'd say:
1. Vat II could hardly have influenced JRRT on subcreation since he did most of his subcreating long before it. IMO the point about "internal" v. "external" God would not have been considered by him. Also, maybe I'm misunderstanding this, but this concept of an "internal" God seems to suggest God has no objective existence or absolute reality, but is a subjective mental construct?! I'm sure JRRT would be dismayed by such a notion, as would I, but was that truly declared Catholic doctrine?
I'm not clear on where this idea comes from; is it an interpretation or extrapolation (not sanctioned by the Church) of Dignitatis Humanae?
2. I know in 1 Letter at least JRRT mentioned Vat II which was underway at that time, & hoped good would come of it. Interestingly, he also mentioned Pius X as a model for church reform particularly in that (if I correctly understood him) he emphasized daily personal devotions. Pius X was also known for opposing "modernists" and "relativists" gaining influence in the late 19th Cent, & boosting Mariology. Of course the SSPX movement as such wouldn't have existed at the time of Vat II.
3. JRRT's attachment to the RCC was (according to Carpenter, esp) deeply emotional & tied to his memory of his mother Mabel. After her husband's death, she converted to Catholicism, brought Ronald & Hillary into the Church, was practically ostracized for it by her Baptist family as well as her late husbands' (Anglican?), died of diabetes when JRRT was 12. He blamed his extended families for contributing to her death with antiCatholic bigotry.
Based on that, I'd guess JRRT would not leave the Church or criticize the Pope or the Church over Vat II or almost anything else, as proved to be the case in spite of his regret that the Latin Mass was jettisoned. :coffee:
Many Defeats & Many Fruitless Victories Memoirs Gateway
For I was talking aloud to myself...the old...choose the wisest person present to speak to...
Reply
#25
"What song the Sirens sang, or what name Achilles assumed when he hid himself among women, though puzzling questions are not beyond conjecture." - Sir Thomas Browne, Religio Medici
Reply
#26
Christianity does not teach intolerance, however many people have practiced intolerance in the name of Christianity. The two should not be confused with one another.

Many scientists, it should be noted, are comfortable living with their faith in a God they can neither produce on demand nor logically show his existence. I have always maintained that if God exists he is completely Natural, as all Nature comes from him.

Technically, there is nothing in the Bible that teaches a belief in God must be diametrically opposed to the principles of Science. The Bible itself is a myth insofar as there has never been a single Bible.

The writers of the Bible were reaching for a spiritual connection which Science has done little to evaluate.
Reply
#27
Michael Wrote:Christianity does not teach intolerance, however many people have practiced intolerance in the name of Christianity. The two should not be confused with one another.

This is such a woefully inaccurate statement that I can only assume you must be joking, right? Please? I could detail dozens of examples of intolerance in The Bible if you really wanted me too. Would it do any good? It is of course a fairly fruitless exercise to try and show a believer that their good book (assuming you are a believer) is full of problems, as a believer can very easily rationalise away this issues, but it does not invalidate or wipe away their existance.

Michael Wrote:Many scientists, it should be noted, are comfortable living with their faith in a God they can neither produce on demand nor logically show his existence. I have always maintained that if God exists he is completely Natural, as all Nature comes from him.

Being clever should not be confused with also being a critical thinker, but I one would hope that they go hand in glove. But you are right, plenty of obviously intelligent people, Mr T and CS Lewis possibly amongst them, still maintain a belief in a deity. But then anyone can fall foul of a little brainwashing; ANYONE. I remember an award willing BBC drama on the subject starting James Earl Jones (as a deprogrammer) and Prunella Scales (as the mother seeking to 'rescue' her daughter from a Californian Religious Cult), which gave a very compelling example of such brainwashing.

Michael Wrote:The writers of the Bible were reaching for a spiritual connection which Science has done little to evaluate.

However, psychology/psychiarty has done a complete hatchet job on the feeble human psyche and has done plenty to explain the childish human need to believe in something bigger than oneself.

Cheers


Padster
Reply
#28
Padster, you might refute the obviously intelligent CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien as regards belief, if you cared to read their writings and dispute them. They have left a witness. But your grinding molars seem to be merely ruminating over what Lewis referred to as "scientism" - the general impression that reference to alleged "science" was sufficient to demonstrate that the "facts" cited were "proved". Your reliance on a Hollywood presentation of "deprogramming" is a roaring bit of "scientism" in extremis. All believers in a higher being are not brainwashed.

You can start with MERE CHRISTIANITY or MIRACLES or even the SCREWTAPE LETTERS by Lewis.

For Tolkien, try LEAF BY NIGGLE first.

Then we can talk intelligently and from an identical starting point, if you would like.
inked
"Aslan is not a tame lion. Safe?
No, he's not safe, but he's good."
CSL/LWW
Reply
#29
Padster Wrote:This is such a woefully inaccurate statement that I can only assume you must be joking, right? Please? I could detail dozens of examples of intolerance in The Bible if you really wanted me too. Would it do any good? ....

Heh! Feel free to quote, but you cannot use the Old Testament. It has nothing to do with who is a believer or not.

Quote:Being clever should not be confused with also being a critical thinker, but I one would hope that they go hand in glove. But you are right, plenty of obviously intelligent people, Mr T and CS Lewis possibly amongst them, still maintain a belief in a deity. But then anyone can fall foul of a little brainwashing; ANYONE. ...

Yes ... ANYONE, including all atheists, deists, and agnostics (that should include everyone).

The feeling of conviction that one brings to any discussion about matters of faith is in itself an expression of faith and belief. You cannot escape either faith or belief. You can only choose where to direct them in your heart.
Reply
#30
I will joinn with inked in pointing out that the Old Testament has nothing to do with Christianity except to lay the foundation. None of the notorious examples of intolerance by the Churc (Albigesinians, etc.) are recorded in, or condoned by, the New Testament.
"What song the Sirens sang, or what name Achilles assumed when he hid himself among women, though puzzling questions are not beyond conjecture." - Sir Thomas Browne, Religio Medici
Reply
#31
Reply
#32
Padster,
You seem to have completely misconstrued my comments.

If you wish to refute the obviously intelligent CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien, we can start from their writings of your choice and move to argument from a common starting point. If you do not wish to, fine.

I have made no comment on your intelligence other than to suggest you are capable of addressing the obviously intelligent authors noted above. If you think that above your paygrade, fine.

The BBC as a source of unimpeachable "science" as opposed to "scientism"? Puh-leaze! I will grant you that the BBC may have a shade more programming than Hollywood, but I should hope you don't get all your information about "science" from BBC programs. They are in the entertainment business, remember. I don't think all British laws are accurately denoted in presentations of Miss Marple or Lord Peter Wimsey or such, do you?

Scientism is not an insult as used by CS Lewis. It is a descriptive, and somewhat humourous, term for folks who project an air of understanding on the basis of peripheral contact. Invoking "science" with as much faith and understanding as they accuse theists of having! If you read your own comments, I think I can rest my case.

Fine, we can start with the Bible. I, by the way, would include the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) in the discussion. It was Michael who wished to leave that out, if you look above. I am not a Marcionite. (See Marcion on wikipedia.)

So, do you wish to engage in argument about specific issues, or, by taking imagined insult, fly the field of intelligent discourse?
inked
"Aslan is not a tame lion. Safe?
No, he's not safe, but he's good."
CSL/LWW
Reply
#33
Padster Wrote:Whether you like it or not, the Old Testament is the foundation of the New.
Yes, they go together, but are in many ways a contrast with the Old showing what was missing to be found in the New.
As the New is the mending of what was torn it stands to reason that this should be the basis for any examples.

I would add my agreement to those who say faith and belief are found in everyone, even if it is the faith and belief in the absence of the same.

And arrogance is as blinding as ignorance.
[COLOR="Teal"]We are not the same persons this year as last; nor are those we love.
It is a happy chance if we, changing, continue to love as a changed person. [/COLOR]

[SIZE="1"]-W. Somerset Maugham[/SIZE]
Reply
#34
*Moderator Note*
This is just a friendly reminder, but I want to proactively caution everyone to be mindful that religion can quickly become a heated topic.
You certainly are not expected to agree. But please respect fellow members.
If you find a reply offensive and feel the need to fire back, please take a breath, step away, contact a moderator if needed, and do not engage.
As always I thank you for your patronage and support. Wink
~doni
[COLOR="Teal"]We are not the same persons this year as last; nor are those we love.
It is a happy chance if we, changing, continue to love as a changed person. [/COLOR]

[SIZE="1"]-W. Somerset Maugham[/SIZE]
Reply
#35
Doncoriel Wrote:*Moderator Note*
This is just a friendly reminder, but I want to proactively caution everyone to be mindful that religion can quickly become a heated topic.
You certainly are not expected to agree. But please respect fellow members.
If you find a reply offensive and feel the need to fire back, please take a breath, step away, contact a moderator if needed, and do not engage.
As always I thank you for your patronage and support. Wink
~doni

Quite so. Although I sincerely believe I have been neither unreasonable nor offensive, and if anyone has taken any offense I apologise unreservedly. And so I can only see one thing left that requires a response, after which I will fall silent, much to everyone’s relief I am sure.

Michael Wrote:...Feel free to quote...

OK. All examples of intolerance to others are from the New Testament. And all text is taken from Richmond Lattimore’s translation of The New Testament (1996 - ISBN: 9780865475243), which is recognised as a very accurate rendering of the original Greek into English, and Lattimore himself is recognised as one of the most distinguished translators of Greek, having a gargantuan understand of the people of the time and the subtleties of the language.

Sadly the translation does not label the verses within the text itself, and just gives a range of chapters verses at the top of the page, but I think I have them right. Even if they start and finish a bit early or late, the fundamentals are there.

[INDENT]1 JOHN 2:22
Anyone who denies that “Jesus is the Christ” is a liar and an antichrist.

[INDENT]Who is the liar, if not the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.[/INDENT][/INDENT]

And:

[INDENT]2 JOHN:7-10
Non-Christians are deceivers and the “antichrist” and Christians should not practice free inquiry, nor socialise with non-Christians, as detailed below:

[INDENT]For many deceivers have come forth into the world, who do not acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ into the flesh; such is the deceiver and the antichrist. Look to yourselves, so as not to lose what we have done but receive your full reward. Whoever breaks forward and does not abide by the teaching of the Christ does not have God; the one who abides by his teaching has the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you that does not bring this doctrine, do not take them into your house and do not give him greeting; for anyone who gives his a greeting shares in his evil deeds.[/INDENT][/INDENT]

A bit strong wouldn’t you say? So everyone, Buddhist, Muslim, Atheist, Sikh, etc, etc, are all “antichrists” and you shouldn’t talk with them. Yes there are verses that also require Christians to spread the word, but then that touches on another huge issue with Christian belief, the errors and contradictions in their good book. And still further, anyone who greets these sort of people share in their evil? How much more intolerant do you think it is possible to get?

[INDENT]ROMANS 16:17
Anyone who does not agree with a Christian’s religious views should be avoided.

[INDENT]And I entreat you. Brothers, to mark well those who cause dissension and misguidance, which are counter to the doctrine you have learned, and avoid them. Such people are the slaves not of our Lord Christ but of their own bellies, but by fair speech and flattery they deceive the hearts of the simple.[/INDENT] [/INDENT]

Again a bit of a broad statement. So anyone who does not share the Christian view point should be ostracised and generally ignored, and if they do sound persuasive, i.e.: through fair speech, then all they will do is deceive the hearts of the simple. The implication being that Christians who are not deceived are not simple and therefore also have their own ego’s boosted a bit due to their belief.

[INDENT]COLOSSIANS 2:8
Paul, knowing that it is possible for faith to crumble in the face of free, objective and critical evaluation, tells his followers to avoid philosophy and what man knows about the world we live in, if it is not in line with Christian teachings.

[INDENT]See to it that there shall be no one to steal you away by philosophy and by empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the fundamentals of the world, and not according to Christ.[/INDENT][/INDENT]

An absolute peach! So don’t listen to other peoples “philosophy”, don’t accept what is KNOWN about the world, because, if it differs from what Christian teaching says then it’s just wrong! How can this in the slightest bit be defendable or seen as anything other than intolerant of others beliefs?

[INDENT]REVELATIONS 2:9 and 3:9
False Jews are members of “the synagogue of Satan”.

[INDENT]Thus speaks he who is the first and last, who was dead and came to life: I know your affliction and your poverty, yet you are rich, and I know the blasphemy of those who call themselves Jews and are not, but a congregation of Satan.
...
Behold, I deliver to you those of the congregation of Satan, those who call themselves Jews, and they are not, but are not, they are lying...[/INDENT][/INDENT]

Bit harsh! So all Jews who do not follow the Christian faith (yes they do exist and Jesus was a Jew himself), are in fact worshipers of Satan? Not exactly the most tolerant view point I have ever come across.

[INDENT]PHILIPPIANS 2:10
Everyone will have to worship Jesus, whether they want to or not.

[INDENT]Therefore God exalted him and graced him with the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bend, of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue shall confess, to the glory of God the Father, that the Lord is Jesus Christ.[/INDENT][/INDENT]

And so anyone who DOES disagree with Christian teaching is going have to fall into line anyway, whether they like it or not.

Of course, I don’t expect any Christian to have any objection to the above Biblical text, and if they do feel uncomfortable, they will put it down to a problem with the translation, or my inability to understand what it is saying. Which is always possible, but I do credit myself with some limited ability to understand the above text.

You wanted examples of intolerance from the New Testament, well here are some, and I know I could dig out some more too if I had a mind to.

I do think the fact that some believe the Old Testament should be somehow excluded from such an evaluation are simply highlighting the fact that they KNOW it is littered with divine behaviour that is simply cruel, wrong, and wholly unacceptable to the civilised mind, and is therefore indefensible, no matter the strength of one’s belief. Next it'll be, only source examples from the four Gospels themselves.

Anyway, it was nice while it lasted.

Cheers


Padster
Reply
#36
*sigh* Of course the New Tstament proclaims Christ's divinity and says that "No man cometh to the Father except through me." That is what the Good News was. Nowhere does it say that those who do not believe should be mistreated on Earth, only "Cut off." As for the Old Testament, Jesus and Paul, among others, make it clear that the Covenant of Abraham has been supplanted by the New Covenant, and the old no longer applies.
"What song the Sirens sang, or what name Achilles assumed when he hid himself among women, though puzzling questions are not beyond conjecture." - Sir Thomas Browne, Religio Medici
Reply
#37
RELIGION FIGHT!!!!

Seriously, though.

Christianity, in theory, preaches tolerance, but it's easy to cherry pick intolerant passages from the Bible. That makes it exactly no different than Islam, Judaism, and so on.

Religion has often been used as a convenient excuse to be rotten to others, and not feel guilty about it, since they clearly are on God's *** list. Again, this isn't unique to Christianity. For all the "Love thy neighbor," and "Whatsoever you do to the least of my people, that you do unto me," you have some douchenozzle on the news with a "God Hates Fags" sign.

The big failing are less in the preaching than the practicing.

Except for the Old Testament. That's just unacceptable behavior in a deity.

If I were Abraham, I'd have gotten me a new God. I'd have heard the command to sacrifice my son, paused, muttered "Right." and marched to the nearest heathen temple.

"Hi there. Yeah," *points out Graven Idol at random* "That cat headed broad. She ever ask you to gank your own kid or cut the skin off your unit? No? Ok, sign me up."

Seriously, Odin's not that big a jerk. At least he wanted you to sacrifice other people's kids. And the whole "Nah, I was just testing you. Dude! You were totally gonna do it! Wow," thing does not make God look good. I'd've been looking for golden calves pretty quick.

It's hard to reconcile the Old Testament with a benevolent deity. And I don't think you get to say, "Everything before Jesus doesn't count, " and then argue Leviticus to deny people equal rights and push to have the Ten Commandments set in front of the courthouse. You can use the OT or not. Pick one.
Wrestling Darwin on a daily basis.

"Question boldly even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, He must more approve of the homage of reason than that of a blindfolded fear." -Thomas Jefferson
Reply
#38
*shrug* Not all of us do those things, Jesus, when asked to identify the most important Commandments, said, "Thou shalt love thy God with all your heart and all your soul and all your mind. This is the first and greatest Commandment; and ye shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two Commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." He Himself was forgiving of covetousness and lust, don't forget, and said further that "The Sabbath was made for man, not Man for the Sabbath."
"What song the Sirens sang, or what name Achilles assumed when he hid himself among women, though puzzling questions are not beyond conjecture." - Sir Thomas Browne, Religio Medici
Reply
#39
Attalus Wrote:*shrug* Not all of us do those things,

Absolutely true.

There is, however, a huge chunk of the conservative christian movement that does like to quote Old Testament sources, like Leviticus, so it's a bit difficult to reconcile the whole "It counts when it supports our point of view, but not when you cite examples of intolerance in it." I'm totally in favor oif ignoring the Old Testament, but if required to listen to arguments that, for example, homosexuality is an abomination before God, well, I will point out that, by the same source, so are shrimp cocktail and polyester.

Not all secular humanists deserve the sneers thrown at us on this forum, either.

This is, IMO, why large religious and political affiliations, and -isms in general, are Bad Things. They encourage the practice of identifying the wingnuts with the whole, and broad brush generalizations

Attalus Wrote:Jesus, when asked to identify the most important Commandments, said, "Thou shalt love thy God with all your heart and all your soul and all your mind. This is the first and greatest Commandment; and ye shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two Commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." He Himself was forgiving of covetousness and lust, don't forget, and said further that "The Sabbath was made for man, not Man for the Sabbath."

I really like, and generally accept, most of what is attributed to Jesus. I don't have issues with Jesus, I have big issues with the conduct of many major churches, and of a number of people, often very politically active people, who use the Bible to promote what I consider to be very intolerant views, in seeming opposition to the teachings of Christ.

Plus, the Old Testament is just plain nuts. Great screenplays for Cecil B DeMille, but no way to live.

I'm more or less an unaffiliated Christian, in that I believe in the divinity of Christ, and accept His teachings, but I have too many issues with any given church to join, which I would consider tacitly approving of their misdeeds.
Wrestling Darwin on a daily basis.

"Question boldly even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, He must more approve of the homage of reason than that of a blindfolded fear." -Thomas Jefferson
Reply
#40
The science fiction novel The Fall of Hyperion by Dan Simmons offers an interesting interpretation:

Abraham was testing God. If God hadn't taken His command to sacrifice back, Abraham would have deemed Him unworthy of worship!
:deadhorse:
"A Iluvatarinya! En na pelecco carinyesse!"
"Oh my God! There's an axe in my head!" :worry:

http://www.yamara.com/axe/#Q1
Reply

MYCode Guide

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Nazism, Arthurian myths, C.S. Lewis, and Tolkien badlands 4 134 April 29th, 2022, 09:51 AM
Last Post: Alvin Eriol
  Tolkien a racist? badlands 2 93 April 27th, 2022, 02:42 PM
Last Post: Alvin Eriol
  What did Tolkien mean? badlands 2 112 April 17th, 2022, 11:56 AM
Last Post: Michael
  Tolkien Publications bilbobaggins764 0 95 March 30th, 2022, 04:20 PM
Last Post: bilbobaggins764
  Priscilla Tolkien has sailed away to the undying lands. badlands 3 182 March 11th, 2022, 09:09 PM
Last Post: Mordomin
  Is Tolkien anti- religious? badlands 3 252 February 24th, 2022, 06:39 PM
Last Post: Alvin Eriol
  Tolkien memes badlands 2 142 February 23rd, 2022, 11:35 PM
Last Post: bilbobaggins764
Star Tolkien and sex badlands 2 277 February 23rd, 2022, 11:32 PM
Last Post: bilbobaggins764
  Tolkien fun facts badlands 1 148 January 26th, 2022, 02:19 AM
Last Post: Michael
  Tumblr blog trolls Tolkien fans Michael 2 500 May 7th, 2021, 12:53 PM
Last Post: badlands

Forum Jump: