thank you Sir!

Phlo, my friend and brother!!

I simply want to commend you!!!

Your decision to read the book showed tremendous integrity. (not that you needed more! )

But you saw you were missing an important part of understanding this discussion and you chose to tackle it head on. I find that tremendously honorable and admirable.

Good for you my friend.

Luke,

Seems you're a busy man as many are. If you end up finding the time to respond to Phlo (especially considering that he DID read the book and is greatly commended for doing so), could you respond to that which I wrote to you on the 6th? It wasn't anything deep, but it was a response to your comments to me. If our combined conversation is kind of running its head into the ground, I'll leave this to you and Phlo until I actually read the book as well (which is not likely ).

Please know that my comments and questions from the beginning of this discussion were based around my observations more than my disagreements. You know by now that I can tend to argue both sides of something and consider all extremes before reaching a conclusion. Having walking into a Christian Bookstore to see an Elijah Wood doll kind of threw me (if you can imagine ). It wasn't really an issue of whether or not the book or the movie was more detailed. Rather, I was presenting the argument that these items had no place in a Christian Bookstore any more than a copy of the Die Hard series on DVD and Screenplay edition (You know, a Bruce Willis doll and stuff ).

Having recently seen the newest installment of the series "on film," the issue of Gandalf was raised in my mind. Previous to that, when Gandalf was a topic of discussion, I stayed out of the conversation, for I had no input or thought to contribute.

Again, Phlo should be commended for his reading of the book, but my only reason for continuing to speak on the issue was that in having seen Two Towers, there is clearly a FILM promotion in the Christian Bookstores JUST AS MUCH as the book is being promoted. Hence, either one is interchangeable in my attempt at sincere shock.

Though we know that you hold these books in high regard and respect, it would seem that even the Christian Bookstores do not show a distinction in their presentations of LOTR for the entering public. Their encouragement is to buy the book AND the movie. Why not, right? Its money in the bank, isn't it?

Anyways, I hadn't said much on it for a few weeks and thought I'd remind you that there WAS indeed a response to you on the 6th. If you had a response in return over the next few days, no problem. If not, I understand and have no problem letting it go.

Enjoy your coming weekend,

Mercy

Servant,



if there be any 'Glory' in it or from it; then let that 'Glory' be to God !

bless you, Sir and King!

in Love.........

Hi Phlo,

Thanks for your patience with me, as it's taken me some time to find time to respond.

I'm glad you enjoyed the novel! You wrote to me:
<blockquote>Tolkien writes this: "as for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. it is neither allegorical nor topical."

also: "but i cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since i grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. i much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of the readers. i think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author."

now, Sir Luke and family, what is your standpoint on these two statements by Tolkien?</blockquote>
Good question. We have discussed the fact earlier that LOTR is not allegory in the sense that C.S. Lewis's novels are. I have agreed with this. But I said (if I recall) that there are many allusions in LOTR to realities that we know from our Christian faith. I might have added that of these, we know many truths by experience too, for we experience grace, evil, we know the difference between good and evil in their various forms, etc. Tolkien puts it this way: "varied applicability to the thought and experience of the readers." What I called allusions he calls "applicability": I don't see the difference in meaning. If it were said that the difference is that one belongs to the author and the other belongs to the reader, then I would reply that Tolkien himself describes himself as a fellow reader. He did not completely invent the tale, as he describes it; he discovered it through his careful attention to his deepest feelings and perceptions. He wrote it as a reader of it, one might say. For in the same forward he writes, "As the story grew it put down roots (into the past) and threw out unexpected branches... Its sources are things long before [the war of 1939] in mind..."

Further, this literature presents a great picture of humanity with respect to its struggle of good vs. evil. As such, it cannot be divorced from the author's view of humanity, good and evil, etc. But the author's view of humanity, good and evil, etc., were informed by both Christian teaching and the grace that accompanies. Therefore not only is it unsurprising if we find aspects of Christianity turning up through allusion and being appropriately glorified in this or that detail of the story, but the story as a whole admits of a Christian character. If one were to reply "other religions distinguish between good and evil", as was done early on in this conversation, the answer is that the meaning of this trilogy comes down to a whole lot more than the fact of a distinction between good and evil. It is about how good wins, the power of humility, the goodness of nature vs. the twisted nature of evil, and more, all not simply but in great detail, every truth in right proportion and appropriately interrelated to every other truth. The demand, "prove from the book that this (view of the whole) is the case" would be like a demand that one could make, "tell me why civilization is good." Unless we are going to write a PhD thesis, and we can't here, what can one say? Either one sees it or one doesn't, or one is thinking about different questions, or sub-questions. All I can say is, I see it in LOTR.

Thus here we have been talking mainly about manageable sub-questions, such as who is like Christ in LOTR? On this you wrote,
<blockquote>Luke, you know, if i had to pick someone out of all the characters of 'LOTR's' to represent Christ it would not be Gandolf! but it would be Aragorn</blockquote>
I agree with you, with a qualification. Since neither one is the Christ figure (again, as you know, C.S. Lewis was not the author - it's not that kind of allegory), we can see Christ-like qualities or allusions in many characters: in Aragorn (I agree with you that he is remarkably like Christ in some ways), Gandalf (strikingly in some ways), Sam, etc.

I'm sorry I don't know the answer to your questions on Tom Bombadil. Susan would know, though. Can I pass this question on to her? Or if some other reader also knows, perhaps he can say.

Anyway, I'm afraid that this is the best I can do in reply to your very good questions for me.

Hi MercyBreeze,

I'm glad that you had a refreshing holiday! Thanks for your patience with me too.

Please don't take this as offence or anger, ok? I tend not to answer what I think I have pre-answered. If someone doesn't read what I write the first or second time, I don't think I should write it a third. In your post from Jan 6, you wrote,
<blockquote>
I'm torn in the idea that a fictional WIZARD is deemed a "representation" of Christ. As in, the character that is "like" Christ in this supposedly Christian literature is one to whom the attributes of magic and sorcery are a foundation for power.</blockquote>
I have dealt with this at length and more than once in this conversation. If you are interested in my thoughts on this matter, it's already there.

You wrote, "That's stretching it just a bit. I always read your posts as thoroughly as you give attention to mine." I think I have responded to all your points except one, thoroughly. If that is what you mean by thorough attention, then I have really given it. But I think you may not have noticed (hence, for example, you are asking me to address the fact that Gandolf was a wizard).

I didn't respond to your point about the battle scene because I didn't understand what you wrote about it at all (no offence meant), and I had already asked you to say plainly what you mean. If someone else understands what MercyBreeze wrote on all this, please say it for me plainly?

All this is intended humbly and as a friend - no sarcasm or anger felt or meant.

Have a great day, everyone,

Luke

Luke,

thank you so much for responding! actually, that seemed quite fast , your response, that is! thanks!

i think i have one more question for ya, if i may! oh, btw, please past that question on to Susan (or if anyone else can answer it, please do), i would be so grateful! well, my question is this: just as you see some attributes of Christ or Christianity in LOTR, do you not or can you not see any attributes of Christ in 'Harry Potter', since it, too, is a "good vs. evil" fantasy/story?

i don't know if you've read the Harry Potter books or seen the movies but i'm sure that you have or know the just of it! that is, knowing that its magical and it has good characters and bad characters in it!!!!

well, sir, i do appreciate you taking the time out to answer my questions!

i pray that you enjoy your evening 'til the next time!!!!

in Love...............

Hi Phlo,

Thanks for the reply! I'm afraid I haven't seen or read any Harry Potter books or movies, so I can't comment on them. When I speak with Susan next, then unless she has already replied to you, I'll pass your question on to her.

Have a great day,

Luke

so be it, my friend, so be it............

in Love.........

Hi guys,

This is the debate that never ends... yes it goes on and on my friends!....

First of all, Tom Bombadil: This is a fascinating character. We spent at least a whole class session in my English class discussing who Tom Bombadil really is within the mythology (ie is he a Maia like Gandalf, a man, a hobbit, what?) and we never came to a conclusive answer - I don't think Tolkien ever intended us to (Elrond himself doesn't seem to know what he is). The way I see it, it doesn't matter what race he belonged to; Bombadil's significance lies in what he does and says. He is, in my interpretation, a representative of the goodness to be found in Nature - unconcerned with the problems of the world and untouched by them because of his closeness to Creation and the Creator. However, he is not perfect: he is so removed from the world in his chosen self-exile that any POWER he has has been diminished. Within the borders he has set for himself he can do amazing things - overcome the barrow-wights, command the trees, see through the illusion cast by the Ring. But he will not pass the borders. At the Council of Elrond he is described as unreliable - he would not understand the importance of the Ring and would soon forget about it if it were given into his care. Bombadil represents Nature - the Ring doesn't seem to have power over the earth, the plants and animals, only over sentient creatures who have a will to be overcome. But it is also powerless to act for itself to take action against evil beyond a very limited fashion.

Another idea is that Bombadil represents an unfallen man - a man who never committed the sin of Adam (or went through the fall of Numenor in the mythology). The Ring has no power over him because he has no weakness of will to be played upon; his soul has not been touched by evil and therefore it cannot tempt him. However, this also means that he cannot truly comprehend evil and the importance of the fight - to him, the most important thing in the world is brigning lilies to his Goldberry and singing his song as he tramps along the Withywindle in his yellow boots. The Ring is no more than a passing curiosity - he has an inkling of the urgency of Frodo's errand but not enough to take full power against Mordor himself.

This is in no way an official or Tolkien-sanctioned interpretation - just my musings.

As for the Harry Potter books, I read the four books a long time ago and I saw the first movie (I found it very boring) and frankly I don't recall finding anything remotely reminiscent of Christianity in them. I could just not be remembering, but the main thing I remember them for is their sheer lack of memorability. They were ultimately forgettable - entertaining, yes, but forgettable. Frankly, I don't remember them well enough to ruminate on whether they might have Christian influences.

Sorry about that.

Love,
Susan

Queen Susan,

how is school going for ya? prayerfully & hopefully things are going well for you.

thank you so very much for responding! your 'musing ' seems quite sufficent, tho my curiosity itches to know more! but your theory of ole Tom is compelling! it is very interesting! i wish Tolkien would have dug deeper into him! at least, we could've known which particular culture he is of! because of his defiance of the ring, i perceive him to be of great power! plus the fact that Gandolf had to stop or simply wanted to stop by ole Tom and chat with him at the end of the novel, as he travelled with Frodo and his companions homeward!

concering Harry, thanks for your remarks on that as well! i kinda expected that answer! tho, i allowed my curiousity to get the best of me concerning reading LOTR's, i doubt truthfully if i would allow my curiousity to get me to read Harry! i was just thinking about some of the similarities that they both have! meaning, the source of their powers and the fact that they both are good vs evil fantasy/stories!!!!
i was thinking for sure someone could represent Gandolf even as Gandolf is believed to represent Christ!

but nevertheless, i think i would end right here with all of this! again, it is a great story, LOTR! may you continue to prosper as you grow in Christ!

in Love.............