Tuesday, May 20, 2008

RE:Suilad Muindor

I would like to apologise to both Mr. Boyd and Mr. Ferril in not being quicker to respond to your comments and posts, as I have either been on the road to Atlanta, in Atlanta, or on the road back from Atlanta. But, now that I'm home hopefully I'll be quicker to respond.

Mr. Ferrill,
I'm glad to hear from you again!

I'm sorry for using the words "Allegory" and "Magic"in a confusing way, please allow me to clear this up.
First let me explain my post where I said "I know you probably think me ignorant in this allegory" I believe this is the confusing part you are referring to.

To my shame, I do not add punctuation as much as needed, this being a prime example of a lack of quotation marks.

What I was attempting to say was "you might think me ignorant in this story (that you call an "Allegory"), I was not saying that I believe this to be an allegory of any sort and I have gone back and corrected the post, although I know what you mean in your recent post were you said "he did use many parallels from other works both fictional and historical." I agree, he did copy from other works, notably Beowulf, the Fianna cycle, King Arthur (BTW, Gandalf bears striking resembalence to the druid Finn Eces and the wizard Merlin), and other fairy-tales.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 states,
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto good works."

We must always examine all things by the light of the LORD's word, or else neither one of us will be right.

I brought up The LOTR not being an allegory because of a point you were making in Maer Gúl, Foeg Gúl, when you stated that the "magic" that Gandalf uses comes from Eru, IF, Tolkien did indeed intend Gandalf's magical power to have come from Eru then he made a major mistake,because as we have both agreed upon, All magic is evil, no matter where you come from or what language you speak, it is evil and does not come from the LORD.

Another problem I have with the LOTR is Tom Bombadil.
Tom Bombadil has this weird power over almost everything he comes in contact with that is never really explained, except to say that he was here before anything else.
When Frodo asks Goldberry (Bombadil's wife) who Bombadil is she merely answers "he is" (an obvious reference to Exodus 3:14 where the LORD told to Moses HIS NAME.), that coupled with Bombadil calling himself the "master" (which is unbiblical according to Matthew 23:10) and "the oldest" helped to turn me off of LOTR.

We can go back and forth with example after example but the real question, and one I find myself asking , "Is it wise to create an alternate universe that has a god and a devil and although the god is good he is not the Triune GOD?" I can guess Calvin's answer to that, and more importantly my conscience has already answered it.

As Luther once said "For to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand. I can do no other...".

8 comments:

Stephen Boyd said...

Mike,please don't apologize!

BTW, have you read any Calvin?

Mike said...

Sure! Calvin and Hobbes :).
Not as much as I need too and this prompts me to start right away.

Stephen Boyd said...

I never realized that Bombadil and Goldberry were husband and wife. I always assumed that was some weird LOTR thing. Does it say anywhere that they were married?

Star Wars is next, gentlemen!

Mike said...

Well, I read a Wiki article on the book The Adventures of Tom Bombadil, in which they are supposed to get married.

But that's Wikipedia, so who knows.

Yes! I loathe Star Wars.

God Bless!
~Mike

PS
Thanks for the link to that Bobby Horton site! I've liked his music alot as well, since I heard it in some Civil War video game.

Evan Travers said...

I don't see why you vilify an imaginary world for not obeying the rules of a real one. Although you make some excellent points, I feel compelled to put in my two cents.

On the nature of Gandalf's power: I always understood his power to be part of his nature, as in that his ability to "shoot light," or remove a curse, is because of what creature he is, as opposed to calling on spirits, ghosts, and spells like Harry Potter. Bombadil is similar. He has power over brooks and trees not because he controls nature spirits, but because he is the guardian of that forest. That is what he was made for, and that is his role. No “magic” in the sense that evil men consider it in our real world. Gandalf and Bombadil do what they were made to do in the same way that a bicycle is made to roll. What would be truly odd is if it started flying.

As for the "clear lack of good." I fail to see this to be true as well. Did you not read the great speech/sentence that Sam utters when Frodo gives up all hope? I quote here:

Frodo Baggins: I can't do this Sam.

Sam Gamgee: I know. It's all wrong. By rights we shouldn't even be here. But we are. It's like in the great stories, Mr. Frodo. The ones that really mattered. Full of darkness and danger, they were. And sometimes you didn't want to know the end. Because how could the end be happy? How could the world go back to the way it was when so much bad had happened? But in the end, it's only a passing thing, this shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come. And when the sun shines it will shine out the clearer. Those were the stories that stayed with you. That meant something, even if you were too small to understand why. But I think, Mr. Frodo, I do understand. I know now. Folk in those stories had lots of chances of turning back, only they didn't. They kept going. Because they were holding on to something.

Frodo: What are we holding on to Sam?

Sam: That there's some good in this world, Mr. Frodo... and it's worth fighting for.

(This might not be perfectly the book's quote. It's in fact probably from the movie, but the feel is the same.)

I don't see Sam in this passage deciding to summon up strength in himself, trusting only in his own strength and goodness to triumph over the hordes of Mordor. I see him recognizing a Good outside of himself, and that that Good demands action. A "moral law," if you will.

My last bit, is that it's really sad that fiction should bring up such emotion and argument in people, myself included. I hope what I've said won't offend, and I hope you have an excellent day. I'm sorry that the fictional land of Middle Earth will never hold any value for you in the future, it has been a great source of inspiration and imagination to myself and my brothers for many years, and will be to our children I'm sure.

In Christ,

Evan Travers

mcferrill said...

Interesting points Evan. I've just completed the next installment in my series of posts on LOTR.

Mike said...

Mr. Travers,
I appreciate the comment.

As to Gandalf's powers he does in fact cast spells (such as the shutting spell in Moria),and spells as we know are not from the LORD so the must be attributed to the enemy.

I must ask, where does the good in the LOTR come from? If not from the LORD, then where? Surely it is an outside source, but it is never named, the hobbits never call upon their gods name, so if the good in the LOTR does not come from the god of LOTR then I ask again, where?

I have not always felt this way. I was on the other side of the debate for a long time, and enjoyed the series.

However, we can’t allow sentimentalism to block our view of the bigger picture and that is bringing every thought captive to the obedience of our LORD and SAVIOUR.

I agree with you, it is a shame that the LOTR, a fictional series, can cause such a division among Brothers who would probably be in agreement in most everything else.

Thanks again for the comment, and God Bless,

~Mike

Mike said...

Just so my readers know, I answerd Mr. Ferrill's post in a comment on his blog.

God Bless!

~Mike