LOTR parrallel to the bible? Frodo vs. Jesus

I think an appropriate Quote would be

"On peut sortir l'homme de la religion, mais on ne peut sortir la religion de l'homme"

Or in english so everyone understands

"We can take the man out of religion, but cannot take the religion out of the man"

What do you think 'bout that?

It makes me think of a line of an ETC song, "Dear God":

".....did you make us, or did we make you?"

Ah... That's an interesting point. I used to believe we created God, but now, I've grown up and I'm really not sure of what it is. Is there really a God or did we create it? Psy would tell you that first man created religion cause they were afraid of what they did not understand. But Go back to the beginning... A proton can be created by another proton bla bla bla and antimatter and stuff... (My physic class are far) But you still need one proton. Who created this particular, first proton (That particular proton is believed to be part of my very brain, by the way ) ?? Hard tought, worst when you're drunk.

Shanamir, I've been trying to make that point to people for a long time now (about the proton, not about being drunk )
If you take God out of the picture there is no logic in our existance or the existance of anything for that matter

The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the total amount of matter and energy in the universe is a constant. They can change form, but nothing is ever created or destroyed. This is a universally (no pun intended) accepted scientific principle. Therefore, any attempt to naturalistically explain where everything came from automatically violates a basic principle of science. (Btw, the Second Law deals with increasing entropy, which means that things always tend to go from complex to simple. This directly contradicts the idea of upward evolution of lower forms to higher forms.)
Modern science teaches evolution (cosmic and organic)as fact, but the real facts of science all point to creation.
Humans have created 'gods' to suit themselves, but the One True God created all of us.

P.S. I don't look down on those of you who believe in evolution. There was a time when I wasn't at all sure about the issue myself. When I really looked at the evidence from both sides, however, I was surprised to discover just how much more consistent real science is with creation than with evolution. But please DON'T take my word about the matter (or that of your science teachers/professors). Take an OBJECTIVE look at ALL the evidence for yourself.

For those who may want more information on evolution, I suggest you read The Naked Ape written by Desmond Morris. He took the 20 some odd years that he studied primates and applied all he learned to the human animal. Vert interesting stuff.

When I really looked at the evidence from both sides, however, I was surprised to discover just how much more consistent real science is with creation than with evolution.

I would be interested in hearing more about that.

Quickbeam, I have to agree. When I was young I was in an odd situation, where I was taught that evolution was a dirty rotten lie. Well, this had an interessting effect on me, since everyone else seemed to believe in it: I wanted to find out why what I was taught was wrong. I read most of Darwin's little book of bull (no offense to those of you who believe what he says, that's just what it seemed to be to me) and was surprised to find that, though evolution is not the dirty rotten lie I was taught it was, it is a sad excuse for science (again this is all my opinion from what I've learned on my own. Don't take anything I say seriously, find out for yourself.)
At one time evolution was a theory, a very nice, though in many ways illogical theory. A lot of people latched on to it, however, because it surfaced in a time when people were looking for an answer that (surprisingly) led to proof that One God created all. Because they didn't have the faith to accept the teachings of the church the used evolution as their proof. However, this went a little far. Mistakes arose, and were quickly answered by additions to the theory. Things were morphed, changed, and before long evolution stopped being an innocent little theory and became (dare I say it) a religion. If you listen to a good debate on evolution you'll be amazed to find that the Darwinists (interessting point: Darwin denied evolution on his death bed, saying he was wrong, yet they still use him as their standard) relly heavilly on faith, though they try to cover it up, while the creation scientists and those who simply don't believe in evolution because they find it illogical hardly let faith enter into their arguments.
The fact is, though evolution is still a very mainstream thing it is in no way accepted as scientific fact, and is quickly leaving the belief system of the real scientific community (meaning those who use science, not theoretical faiths). I think the only reason it's still such a public thing is because it's an easy thing for us to believe, we were apes. The dumbing down of society may be the only real evidence of evolution: backwards.

Just one point about the fact that nothing can be destroyed or created. Is it true what I said about matter and antimatter? That there is an equal amount of matter and AMatter in the U? I'd like someone who knows the answer to confirm please.

Second point. Growing entropy. Human race is sure part of that! Look at what we're doing to the earth. Soon, there will be left nothing on earth! I think we're doing a great job on that! Universe should be grateful to us!

Well... ok maybe I'm off-trak here? but I'm not sure about the creation theory. I just might not be ready. But A sure thing is that the "no-mister-missing-link-found-yet" is a good point toward creationnism.

There is so much concrete, geological evidence in favor of evolution and there is only written word in favor of creationism. Now I realize that it is the Bible but still those are the bare facts of the matter. Anyway there is no reason that both can't be right. The Bible most likely was a metaphor for what really happened. The seven "Days" could very well have meant eras but "days" were written so not to confuse people from that time. And really when you think about it there is no reason that there would be 24 hour days before the sun was created on the fourth (third? fifth? day)

In any event we're wildly off-topic and recall that this is "Lord of the Rings books" forum

i find it hard to believe that so many wonderful lifeforms all appeared just by chance - i see a pattern in living things, & while i don't understand all of it, i know someone(thing?) did create it.

evolution - (warning: i'm definitely not an expert) implies that all life is on a constant path forward. looking at the world (particularly humans & chimps, supposedly the 2 most advanced species ever), i cannot believe this. how advanced are we really if we intentionally & willfully kill each other for no important purpose?

creationism - personally i do not believe the gods had a "higher purpose" when creating the world, but this is a matter of faith & not provable science. i do believe though that the world (& everything in it) by a god or two, maybe intentionally but maybe not.

aryne *

I think Tolkien's work is the top of the literacy evolution. It won't get any better.

Wow!
I only recently was made aware of this thread!

I'll throw in here my 2 cents.

(Please pardon me if i'm tactless at times!
The heat of the moment...)

"[Darwin's theory of evolution] is a sad excuse for science"

How so? From an obscure period when people were blindly accepting
myths as truths, a man (among others) arose, observed, and
deduced a model of lifeforms evolution completely contradictory
to the mindset of his time. He was laughed at, scorned at...
but most of his ideas prevailed. In his time there was no
knowledge of DNA, almost none of genetics. By simple yet important
assumptions, and a long list of observations, his work grew.
He his not a folk teller telling of virgin births, spontanuous
life and water changing into wine. He is someone who tried to
make sense of what was observed and understood at the time.
A sad excuse for science?
Well, maybe some people are sad excuses for students...


"At one time evolution was a theory, a very nice, though in many
ways illogical theory"

Illogical? How so? Illogical compared to what? Resurection?
Creation by a god (then who created the god?)?
Please identify for me the *logical* fallacies in Darwinian evolution,
or in evolution itself.


"Mistakes arose, and were quickly answered by additions to the theory.
Things were morphed, changed, and before long evolution stopped being
an innocent little theory and became (dare I say it) a religion"

Mmmmmmm.... Well mr.Tater, you have to understand something very important
about science: it is NOT a religion, it does NOT contain concepts that
have to be blindly accepted; science is NOT a DOGMA, whatever you think.
That is why when some part of a theory is seen not to concur with what
Nature tell us about herself, it HAS to be changed.
You see, in science we do not bend Nature to our theories: Nature is the
one that teaches us. We cannot invent, as in religion, dogmas that
tell us what we want nature to be. So we change according to the directions
Nature tells us to take. We try an explanation, and then she says "yes"
or "no" to it, and accordingly we change the construct of the theory.
I know, I know, you are used to dogmas and absolute truths of your
scriptures, and science therefore is difficult to understand for you.
In my opinion, science will never attain absolute truths, and in fact I'm
sure all scientists know that (at least the ones i've met).
And this "morphing" of theories in science is not a defect, it is it's most
powerfull tool.
Science abhors Dogmas.



"creation scientists and those who simply don't believe in evolution
because they find it illogical hardly let faith enter into their
arguments"

hehe... "creation scientists" have one thing for sure in their minds:
the literal truth of their scriptures.
The fact is, "creation scientists" main goal is to plant doubts about evolution
and theories of evolution (which in itself is not necesserilly a malicious
goal) only in the hope that by creating some kind of vacuum, people
that believe them will adopt the "alternative" model, the "creation model",
as if killing the evolution idea would only leave the creation idea!


"though evolution is still a very mainstream thing it is in no way
accepted as scientific fact, and is quickly leaving the belief
system of the real scientific community"

Dream on... Think again... Evolution is still a vibrant and healthy
idea, very well accepted, and YES very well disputed in its details.
And THAT is science!
If you think evolution is dying because it gets more complicated to explain,
you (and Creation "Scientists") have a pretty skewed appreciation of the
ways of science, of how it works.
To take an idea, a theory, and cast doubts on it and try to FALSIFY it
IS the way of science.
Contrary to religion (and creation idea), science has a duty to doubt itself,
to doubt its results, to constantly question itself.
Religion contents itself in dogmas, of already made pseudo-solutions that is
only founded in myths.


"evolution (...) implies that all life is on a constant path forward"

That is a misconception. It is not true. Evolution (and most of the
theories that try to show how it happens) is blind to the future; it only
sees the present (in the form of the environment) and the past (in the form
of the genetic inheritence).
A feeble analogy would be a bottle of perfume that is open: the perfume
gets out and expands all around, initially blind to where it would go;
as it expands, walls are met (environment) and contoured.
The expansion of the perfume (which would be the feeble analog of complexity
in life-forms) is not directed, has no will in itself. It takes the space
it can take.
(Please, don't try to see too much in this analogy! It is only that, an
analogy...)




To finish this post, let me say this:

Science will ever be in a fragile state, always being pounded upon by
superstitions, some religions, or other people who prefer an easier way
to understand Nature around us.

Science will ever be in a state of change, continually molding its expla-
nations depending on what Mother Nature tells us about her, which in turn
depends on what new questions we find to ask her (for it is often in the
questions that revolutions are based upon).

Science may throw down the idea of evolution of day... who knows?
But it will be in the name of truth, and not of dogma or superstition or
religious blindness.

For whatever science will say about nature, if religious zealots find it is
not in accordance with their dogmatic beliefs, they will try to pound it down,
... and they may even try to call their method a science...........

juntel and aryn, this is going to far from topic. please post further developments on General Messages, in the related Creation science or in a new one if you want

Thanx


edited to say okay

Hmmm... I promise not to post in this thread again.
I was just answering the few posts on the subject that was already changed.
QB did make a separate thread (Creation Science), but I feel the posts by QB and Tater in this present thread deserve at least my one response in this present thread.

/Edited to say thankso mucho!

I read a wire service article recently published in our local newspaper that mentioned a Tolkien Bible Study was available.

Has anyone heard of this, or do any of you have resources to find an answer to this? I should have clipped the article. It was within the past year, I think.

Of course, Tolkien was devout and the themes of Good and Evil (the perversion from Good by the rebellion of the most powerful created being) and of Creation and of an almighty God were certainly informed by the Christian faith. The parallels to Archangels (Valar) and angels (Maiar) are obvious. Together, this worldview is very Christian in structure.

Tolkien achieves a synthesis with the old Northern European mythologies (and more) by overlaying tales of this sort onto this quasi-christian structure.

This is a part of the brilliance of the work and the depth that underlies the LOTR.

It is interesting to me (and others may think of what has been said before and how one finds what one is looking for in this kind of exercise) that in the LOTR there are no temples or rites. The religious beliefs of the characters are expressed naturally in song and delight and petition. This could be said to correspond to the faith exercised by the more "primitive" Christians among us, who don't know a lot of doctrine, but feel that they have a personal relationship with God, rather than a religion.

The (more or less) Catholic nature of Middle Earth "worship" is seen in that the inhabitants (the good ones) often sing praises to Elbereth for example. Some have likened this to the profound veneration and reverence of Mary, called the Queen of Heaven. The practice of revering Saints and petitioning their prayers to God might be seen as reflected in the quests of Elves and Numenorians to petition the Valar for help, who operate in harmony with the Music of Eru.

Sorry to make such a long post. If anyone has a clue about this half remembered Tolkien Bible Study, I'd sure appreciate it!

There are temples in the Sil. By Catholic I certainly hope you mean "universal," Catholosism is NOT the only for of Christianity.

What temples, Tater? The only one I can think of is the one Sauron had built to Morgoth in Numenor. Definitely not an example to follow. The Numenoreans did have their hallowed spot on the top of Meneltarma, but this wasn't somewhere people went for worship on a weekly basis. There were times when the king went up for festivals, but it wasn't like a temple; there wasn't even a building there. There's also the feeling of a hallowed place mentioned in Unfinished Tales (Cirion and Eorl). This is at Elendil's grave on the Halfirien, but it's a carefully guarded secret. At the time of the War of the Ring, this tomb had been removed.

i've noticed while there aren't "temples" as in buildings made specifically for worship, middle-earth does have a lot of sacred places & things. lorien, the hill of the 2 trees (i can't remember the name right now), fangorn, & rivendell especially have a sacred feel to them, & they (well, except for the hill...) have inherent protection against evil, either from the elves who dwell there or from the places & trees themselves. while not really temples, these sites are treated as such & used as sanctuaries from the "evil" in the world around them.

"indeed there is a power in Rivendell to withstand the might of Mordor, for a while: and elsewhere other powers still dwell. There is power, too, of anotehr kind, in the Shire." - Book II, p. 239

aryne *

Remember that two keepers of Elven Rings of Power dwell in Lorien and Rivendell. Perhaps it's the power of the Rings which gives a sense of timelessness which gives the feeling of sanctuary. The power in Rivendell was, I think, also in the remnant of the Noldor that lived there. Fangorn was Ent territory and they are among the oldest living creatures of Middle-earth. I get more of a feeling that they protect their own. Treebeard was ready to step on Merry and Pippin until he heard their voices. As for the Hill of the Two Trees, do you mean the Two Trees, Telperion and Laurelin? Well, that would be a holy place, but it's in Aman... It's called Ezellohar or Corolaire.

Do I recall from THE SILMARILLION that there were Maiar, or other spirits, who, turning to evil, went east(?) and were worshiped as Gods by Men? Was this after the breaking of Angband?

Sauron was so worshiped, I think. At least by some in Numenor, and perhaps others in Middle Earth.

Makes you wonder what the Blue Wizards were up to...