You say its always people who give a name to God, but obviously this statement would be impossible to know completely. Assuming that God is completely sovereign it might in the end appear that he was named by humans but he actually named himself working through a human. (wow read it a couple times i swear it make sense.)Snaga said:Its always people who give a name to "God". And an atheist would tell you that its always people who create God.
Not only did he not believe it, he attempted to completely rewrite it to fit in with modern cosmogonic theory (see HoME 10). He sent the changes to friends for comment, and they said they preferred the original, so I suspect the changes were abandoned.faila said:If Tolkiens mythology is real then how come we see no evidence of him believing it?
Did he really ever attempt to completely rewrite it (=the mythology)?Eledhwen said:Not only did he not believe it, he attempted to completely rewrite it to fit in with modern cosmogonic theory (see HoME 10).
Once more he refers to his own mythology. His eyes fix on some distant object, and he seems to have forgotten that I am there.... but the mind (T's) is far away, roaming the plains and the mountains of Middle-earth
He says that he has to clear up an apparent contradiction in a passage of the LotR that has been pointed out in a letter from a reader.... He explains it all in great detail, talking about his book not as a work of fiction, but as a chronicle of actual events; he seems to see himself not as an author who has made a slight error that must now be corrected or explained away, but as a historian who must cast light on an obscurity in a historical document.
he did it for the money i think..........and isnt it L. Ron hubbard? He made mass amounts of money off his cult. (Edit: but he did write some great science fiction, though not as great as Robert A. heinlen or Larry Niven but still good)Eledhwen said:Ask Ron L Hubbard (deceased?)
I don't see the sense in this. One could say that Tolkien was merely a medium through whom the whole mythology was conveyed to the rest of the world, whether the professor would agree with that or not. And what you say about the creation cycle being backwards, that could easily be said of Christianity (and other religions? I don't know them well enough to tell), in the sense that the men who wrote the Bible were also the creators of it, and of God. The fact that Christianity is 2000+ years old, and therefore drastically older than any would-be Tolkien religion, does not render the latter any less believable in my eyes. Faith is not based on proof, as much as it is based on 'blind' belief.Rangerdave said:I find the concept of a faith based on the writings of Master Tolkien to be bit flawed from the very begining.
Eru was the creator of Arda, true. But Master Tolkien was the Creator of Eru. This means that the creation cycle in a Eru based mythology is backwards. Instead of the more usual Supreme Being>Cosmos>Man hierachy, you have instead a more complex Man(Tolkien)>Cosmos>Supreme Being equation. Very hard to follow.
Tolkien was a Roman Catholic. He practiced his religion, professing daily devotions; he confessed catholicism in his letters and evangelised (notably CS Lewis).Walter said:Did Tolkien actually create a "religion" for his legendarium? And did he really consider the one he practiced the real thing?
I mean all we have is a little bit of information that would support such a point of view and a little bit of information that would be able to question this.
Can one be real sure about anyone elses religion to make statements in such a "matter-of-factly" way?
Scio me nihil scire...
I envy you, honestly...Eledhwen said:Tolkien was a Roman Catholic. He practiced his religion, professing daily devotions; he confessed catholicism in his letters and evangelised (notably CS Lewis).
Added to this, I am also a practicing Christian, and it takes one to know one, so to speak.
'I wish I were a little more Catholic, then all would be quite easy, I would go to church each sunday and confess my sins (and would be rid of them)'
But why then does the priest say "Ego te absolvo..." when one is done confessing?Inderjit S said:One can confess your sins without going to church or being a Catholick, of course.
And getting "rid of" your sins? Well you can repent of your sins, but get rid of them? You cannot get rid of something you have already done.
Confession, better known now as Reconciliation, does just that for you.Inderjit S said:....you can repent of your sins, but get rid of them? You cannot get rid of something you have already done.
I must say that you do basically get rid of your sins....you may have a punishment on this earth, but once confessed their no eternal punishment...so basically its gotten rid of. (note: Im not a catholic...so my beliefs are different in some areas)Inderjit S said:One can confess your sins without going to church or being a Catholick, of course.
And getting "rid of" your sins? Well you can repent of your sins, but get rid of them? You cannot get rid of something you have already done.
But why then does the priest say "Ego te absolvo..." when one is done confessing?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Are you happy to accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Are you happy to accept cookies and these technologies?