Not signed in (Sign In)

Share This Page

Bookmark and Share

Welcome, Guest

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Tweet This


                   Tweet The Arrogant Atheist Forum
              Tweets current page.

  • Become Forum Nobility



      $1-$10 : Baron/Baroness
      $11-$20 : Count/Countess
      $21-$50 : Marquess/Marchioness
      $51-$100 : Duke/Duchess
      $101+ : Archduke/Archduchess

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

This discussion is closed because it has been inactive for longer than 60 days. Why not start a new discussion?

Mashing: The Only Good Thing To Come From Christianity

Bottom of Page

51 to 99 of 99

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. >
  1.  
    Posted By: Arethusa Bransome
    concurquote
    What about the angry god doing this to his own people?


    god's calmed down alot over the years!!!:)(\__/) (='.'=) (")_(")
    •  
      CommentAuthorInferno
    • CommentTimeMar 6th 2010
     
    Posted By: breezyspreezygod's calmed down a lot over the years!!!:)


    Oh did he now? I'm actually more at ease with the god of the Old Testament. He'd kill you, we're done. The "calmed down" God of the New Testament will make you burn in Hell. For ever.

    God: "Yeah man, chill out. Have a J. *inhales* Now go burn in hell. LOOOOL so funny man!"The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be. -Carl Sagan
  3.  
    ?(\__/) (='.'=) (")_(")
    •  
      CommentAuthorInferno
    • CommentTimeMar 6th 2010
     
    Posted By: breezyspreezy?sitting in a hand-basket, expecting to get roasted


    I meant that God had apparently hasn't calmed down. He's become even more of a dick and hasn't calmed in the least.The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be. -Carl Sagan
  5.  
    hmm. you are not mad at people who step over yourself for selfish gain or who kill others in the name of god, but god shouldn't be pissed. wait, what do you mean god hasn't calmed down? i thought god didn't exist????(\__/) (='.'=) (")_(")
    •  
      CommentAuthorInferno
    • CommentTimeMar 6th 2010 edited
     
    God doesn't exist. But you assume he does so I start off with your assumption. And no, God by definition shouldn't be pissed, jealous, etc.The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be. -Carl Sagan
  7.  
    Why didn't god just make us like Jesus, breezy? He couldn't do bad and still had free will.
  8.  
    this is rediculous. you know what my arguments would be. i know you will tell me i'm wrong. and btw inferno, don't be mad at me, i was framed! tricked! fackelderaufklaring manipulated it out of me!:)(\__/) (='.'=) (")_(")
    •  
      CommentAuthorInferno
    • CommentTimeMar 6th 2010
     
    Posted By: breezyspreezyand btw inferno, don't be mad at me, i was framed! tricked! fackelderaufklaring manipulated it out of me!:)


    Nonono, don't pull that. It's all your fault! ;)
    Yes you are wrong, I agree. :)The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be. -Carl Sagan
  10.  
    no! it's your fault! what was your fault? i forgot now. whatever.:)(\__/) (='.'=) (")_(")
    •  
      CommentAuthorInferno
    • CommentTimeMar 6th 2010
     
    Posted By: breezyspreezyno! it's your fault! what was your fault? i forgot now. whatever.:)sitting in a hand-basket, expecting to get roasted


    Everything is my fault, from the extinction of the dinosaurs to religion... :D
    I concur: SwedishDreamer
    The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be. -Carl Sagan
  12.  
    breezyspreezy

    is this a trick question?:)


    Yes. And you exactly replied as I expected.

    Posted By: breezyspreezythis is rediculous. you know what my arguments would be. i know you will tell me i'm wrong. and btw inferno, don't be mad at me, i was framed! tricked! fackelderaufklaring manipulated it out of me!:)


    Nope, it's just your own bias at work. You see the attrocities that are ascribed to your god through rose-coloured glasses. You rationalize them in a manner that they become "good", and how could you not? After all, your god is supposed to be all-loving, so he must have had a good reason to kill off millions of people.

    It's the same logic Pat Robertson applied to the Haiti-earthquake.The fear of death arises from the false belief that in death there is awareness.
  13.  
    for the record, you asked me how i would tell the story. why it's not okay for me to rose-colour a story for my kid and it is okay to take him to a modern-day version of alice-in-wonderland(really want to see it!!!) or let him watch teletubbies(where's the reality in that?) is beyond me, fackelderaufklaring.(\__/) (='.'=) (")_(")
  14.  
    enjoy, please.(\__/) (='.'=) (")_(")
  15.  
    Posted By: breezyspreezyfor the record, you asked me how i would tell the story. why it's not okay for me to rose-colour a story for my kid

    I don't think it's so much a problem with showing them a rose colored version of the story, as it is skipping over parts of the story to form your own. It would be like cutting out all the fighting in the story of Troy. It would be a completely different story. So if you admit that much of the stuff in the bible isn't appropriate for a child, then that's fine. He can read it if he wants when he matures. But children are being taught shortened and mutilated versions of bible stories. Like the link DC gave. It's just dishonest. The bible is not for children's eyes just as much as most Stephen King books aren't.
    I concur: Inferno, FackelDerAufklärung, PoemOf4Letters
  16.  
    I used to babysit for church services on Sunday morning. You wouldn't believe some of the shit books I read out loud to them. There was this one on jesus's life, and they said "Jesus carried the heavy cross down the long road" then "Jesus died soon later". they for got "HE WAS MUTHERED!" seriously? Lame.

    I don't see why this should be a fault of the bible though. It's supposed to cover everything you need to now to live a righteous life. Not everything that happens in this world is child appropriate. The bible really is an awesome story, even if it doesn't always teach the best morals. Judas? Mary Magdalene? Jobe? they're classic characters.
    I concur: breezyspreezy
    She shows no emotion at all, stares into space like a dead China doll. - Elliott Smith
  17.  
    Yes, entertaining stories. It's like the Lord of the Rings: Tolkien was a horrible person, and a racist douchebag, but the Lord of the Rings (in my opinion, LoTR-haters) is such an awesome story, even though it's racist and has a message I don't agree with at all."I don't intend to achieve immortality through my work. I intend to achieve it through not dying." -Woody Allen
    •  
      CommentAuthorMATT
    • CommentTimeMar 7th 2010
     
    What message is that? I've been living under a rock apparently.
    • CommentAuthorEVLWNS
    • CommentTimeMar 7th 2010
     
    Posted By: breezyspreezy
    Posted By: Arethusa Bransome
    concurquote
    What about the angry god doing this to his own people?


    god's calmed down alot over the years!!!:)you are a lovely person, that's what i think!


    Isn't God supposed to be eternal and unchanging?

    Posted By: PoemOf4LettersNot everything that happens in this world is child appropriate.


    I'd still give it to them straight, rather than try and soften the blow. Cloud their mind with unrealistic expectations of niceness and goodness, and they're going to find it real fucking hard when they see the world as it truly is: a fucking shithole. Best they be prepared for it when it comes.

    Posted By: demented cookiesYes, entertaining stories. It's like the Lord of the Rings: Tolkien was a horrible person, and a racist douchebag, but the Lord of the Rings (in my opinion, LoTR-haters) is such an awesome story, even though it's racist and has a message I don't agree with at all.


    Whoa, whoa, whoa! A horrible person? A racist douchebag? You and I have clearly read different biographies of the man. And have different interpretations of the Lord of the Rings."When I am, Death is not; and when Death is, I am not. Then why fear what I cannot be?"
  20.  
    Posted By: EVLWNS
    Posted By: demented cookiesYes, entertaining stories. It's like the Lord of the Rings: Tolkien was a horrible person, and a racist douchebag, but the Lord of the Rings (in my opinion, LoTR-haters) is such an awesome story, even though it's racist and has a message I don't agree with at all.


    Whoa, whoa, whoa! A horrible person? A racist douchebag? You and I have clearly read different biographies of the man. And have different interpretations of the Lord of the Rings.

    I'm kind of exaggerating, but I never thought of him as a very good person. Or we just have different opinions. I noticed, reading the book, that all the main characters are amazingly English, all the bad guys are from the east and the south, etc. I'm constantly mixing the book with the movie (which is my mistake), and the movie is quite racist as well, with the guys riding the Olifaunts (or however you spell it) looking very middle-eastern and the guys on the ships looking like my ancestors.
    But Tolkien himself, the message I received from reading the book is that a king, or at least a fixed ruler, is required. And, being kind of an anarchist, I completely disagree. I don't know how to explain it better. I have it all explained it my head, but it's hard to write it down so others can understand.

    Plus he converted C.S. Lewis. That lowers him another couple notches in my book.

    (I just noticed from reading my post that I'm kind of a comma-whore... I love those commas. :D)"I don't intend to achieve immortality through my work. I intend to achieve it through not dying." -Woody Allen
  21.  
    Posted By: demented cookiesPlus he converted C.S. Lewis. That lowers him another couple notches in my book.

    Wow really? Christians love to quote Lewis so much now I kinda hate Tolkien for converting him. The damage he helped cause...
    •  
      CommentAuthorMATT
    • CommentTimeMar 7th 2010 edited
     
    Posted By: demented cookies(I just noticed from reading my post that I'm kind of a comma-whore... I love those commas. :D)

    Commas, they artificially lengthen sentences and make thoughts blurry and diluted. Yay!
  23.  
    I know, right? But it backfired because, while Tolkien was a Roman Catholic, Lewis chose the Church of England, which really pissed Tolkien off. Kind of amusing because both are forms of Christianity, and they're all pretty much the same, yet people are always getting their pants in a knot over which one they believe in."I don't intend to achieve immortality through my work. I intend to achieve it through not dying." -Woody Allen
    • CommentAuthorEVLWNS
    • CommentTimeMar 8th 2010
     
    Posted By: demented cookiesI'm kind of exaggerating, but I never thought of him as a very good person. Or we just have different opinions. I noticed, reading the book, that all the main characters are amazingly English, all the bad guys are from the east and the south, etc. I'm constantly mixing the book with the movie (which is my mistake), and the movie is quite racist as well, with the guys riding the Olifaunts (or however you spell it) looking very middle-eastern and the guys on the ships looking like my ancestors.
    But Tolkien himself, the message I received from reading the book is that a king, or at least a fixed ruler, is required. And, being kind of an anarchist, I completely disagree. I don't know how to explain it better. I have it all explained it my head, but it's hard to write it down so others can understand.

    Plus he converted C.S. Lewis. That lowers him another couple notches in my book.

    (I just noticed from reading my post that I'm kind of a comma-whore... I love those commas. :D)


    Commas are awesome. You used them properly.

    You do not seem to understand the story. Not in its totality. That's understandable; you're young, and you have more important things to do than study the history and intricacies of a piece of fiction. To understand it better you have to keep in mind that Tolkien was one of the greatest linguists and mythologists of his time. I also couldn't possibly explain it all to you here, but I'm just going to say that you shouldn't read so much into the ethnicities in the book. That's superficial, just like in the real world. (Also, you're ancestors looked like white New Zealand extras in tattered black armour?) As for the king thing, if you read the Silmarillion, the equivalent of the Old Testamant to the Lord of the Rings' New Testament, you'd understand why that's such a crucial part of the story.

    And the C. S, Lewis bit? Well, I'm not sure about what drove Lewis to abandon his atheism, but I'm not sure Tolkien had anything to do with it (apart from that hilarious anger at Lewis joining the CoE)."When I am, Death is not; and when Death is, I am not. Then why fear what I cannot be?"
  25.  
    Posted By: ProletariatTreeHugerThe bible is not for children's eyes just as much as most Stephen King books aren't.


    It's the only part where I disagree. Tell them stories of the Bible alright, but do it consistently to show them the true character of that religion's god, not the ones certain believers (like Breezy) want him to have.

    And hell, when I was little I smuggled books of Stephen King from my local library to my room :) (Ain't it funny that books have no age-ratings? At least not in Germany.) I remember reading "Christine", that was a funny ride.The fear of death arises from the false belief that in death there is awareness.
  26.  
    ah, christine. strange that something so impossible can give me nightmares.:)(\__/) (='.'=) (")_(")
  27.  
    Posted By: FackelDerAufklärungIt's the only part where I disagree. Tell them stories of the Bible alright, but do it consistently to show them the true character of that religion's god, not the ones certain believers (like Breezy) want him to have.

    How old were you? Because I think there definitely is a line to be drawn. Between being teen, tween, toddler, whatever else. At a certain point the child doesn't need to know yet.
    I concur: breezyspreezy
  28.  
    I remember checking out the first Harry Potter book at my school in first grade. The teacher noticed when we got back to the classroom and made me take it back and as punishment I wasn't allowed to pick a different once. Grrr. . . I can STILL get pissed about that. She said her official reason was because some familied weren't letting their kids. She only believed that I was allowed to read them when my mom went out and bought the book and sent me to school with it, with her handwriting in the cover telling the teacher not to take it away.

    After that no teacher ever messed with me when I wanted to read a book.

    But I liked Cell. I stole it from my sister and read over a weekend. Very good. I haven't been able to read much else, because of obstacles to me getting and reading his books.Canto Ergo Sum
  29.  
    i haven't read that one, it's about the demon-possessed phones right? do tell.(\__/) (='.'=) (")_(")
  30.  
    Uh, kinda. The phones do something that turns people into zombie like things.Canto Ergo Sum
  31.  
    My second grade teacher made me put books back because she thought I was too stupid to read them :(She shows no emotion at all, stares into space like a dead China doll. - Elliott Smith
    •  
      CommentAuthorJeeves
    • CommentTimeMar 9th 2010
     
    Posted By: demented cookies
    Posted By: EVLWNS
    Posted By: demented cookiesYes, entertaining stories. It's like the Lord of the Rings: Tolkien was a horrible person, and a racist douchebag, but the Lord of the Rings (in my opinion, LoTR-haters) is such an awesome story, even though it's racist and has a message I don't agree with at all.


    Whoa, whoa, whoa! A horrible person? A racist douchebag? You and I have clearly read different biographies of the man. And have different interpretations of the Lord of the Rings.

    I'm kind of exaggerating, but I never thought of him as a very good person. Or we just have different opinions. I noticed, reading the book, that all the main characters are amazingly English, all the bad guys are from the east and the south, etc. I'm constantly mixing the book with the movie (which is my mistake), and the movie is quite racist as well, with the guys riding the Olifaunts (or however you spell it) looking very middle-eastern and the guys on the ships looking like my ancestors.
    But Tolkien himself, the message I received from reading the book is that a king, or at least a fixed ruler, is required. And, being kind of an anarchist, I completely disagree. I don't know how to explain it better. I have it all explained it my head, but it's hard to write it down so others can understand.

    Plus he converted C.S. Lewis. That lowers him another couple notches in my book.

    (I just noticed from reading my post that I'm kind of a comma-whore... I love those commas. :D)


    WHOOAAA

    First of all, putting people who "appear" to be asian or middle eastern who seem to be bad in a book doesn't make the author a "racist douchebag". What if I put a bunch of people with size 11 feet in a book and I'm supposed to fight them. Does that mean I hate people with size 11 feet?

    Second, just because Tolkien makes a King appear in the book doesn't make him support a type of monarchy. Same as before, if I wrote a book and my main character becomes king, is that saying that I support having a monarchy?

    no way
    I concur: EVLWNS
    meow
    • CommentAuthorEVLWNS
    • CommentTimeMar 10th 2010
     
    Posted By: JeevesWHOOAAA

    First of all, putting people who "appear" to be asian or middle eastern who seem to be bad in a book doesn't make the author a "racist douchebag". What if I put a bunch of people with size 11 feet in a book and I'm supposed to fight them. Does that mean I hate people with size 11 feet?

    Second, just because Tolkien makes a King appear in the book doesn't make him support a type of monarchy. Same as before, if I wrote a book and my main character becomes king, is that saying that I support having a monarchy?

    no way


    Precisely, Jeeves. Although, considering both your circumstances, you could have just told her that in person."When I am, Death is not; and when Death is, I am not. Then why fear what I cannot be?"
  34.  
    Posted By: ProletariatTreeHugerHow old were you? Because I think there definitely is a line to be drawn. Between being teen, tween, toddler, whatever else.
    Around 10. It was the same time I read Orwell's 1984 for the first time. And why did I read those? Because I was pissed at children stories, as most of them didn't take me, as a reader, seriously :)
    At a certain point the child doesn't need to know yet.
    How did you deduce what a child does and doesn't need to know at what age?
    Posted By: PoemOf4LettersMy second grade teacher made me put books back because she thought I was too stupid to read them :(

    Well, this sucks.The fear of death arises from the false belief that in death there is awareness.
  35.  
    Well, children rely on their parents to figure out the world. To do that, it's beneficial to develop a methodology in what you teach.
    Would you try to teach a student advanced calculus before you teach him basic multiplication? I hope not. The same concept applies here. I have no problem with sharing any book with a child. But some things come first, as they aren't ready for everything from the beginning.
    And yes, it is ultimately up to the parent and the child involved. There is no absolute method for all children.
  36.  
    you can never match age=developmental stage anyway. in every aspect of every form of development each child has uniqueness.(\__/) (='.'=) (")_(")
  37.  
    Posted By: Jeeves
    Posted By: demented cookies
    Posted By: EVLWNS
    Posted By: demented cookiesYes, entertaining stories. It's like the Lord of the Rings: Tolkien was a horrible person, and a racist douchebag, but the Lord of the Rings (in my opinion, LoTR-haters) is such an awesome story, even though it's racist and has a message I don't agree with at all.


    Whoa, whoa, whoa! A horrible person? A racist douchebag? You and I have clearly read different biographies of the man. And have different interpretations of the Lord of the Rings.

    I'm kind of exaggerating, but I never thought of him as a very good person. Or we just have different opinions. I noticed, reading the book, that all the main characters are amazingly English, all the bad guys are from the east and the south, etc. I'm constantly mixing the book with the movie (which is my mistake), and the movie is quite racist as well, with the guys riding the Olifaunts (or however you spell it) looking very middle-eastern and the guys on the ships looking like my ancestors.
    But Tolkien himself, the message I received from reading the book is that a king, or at least a fixed ruler, is required. And, being kind of an anarchist, I completely disagree. I don't know how to explain it better. I have it all explained it my head, but it's hard to write it down so others can understand.

    Plus he converted C.S. Lewis. That lowers him another couple notches in my book.

    (I just noticed from reading my post that I'm kind of a comma-whore... I love those commas. :D)


    WHOOAAA

    First of all, putting people who "appear" to be asian or middle eastern who seem to be bad in a book doesn't make the author a "racist douchebag". What if I put a bunch of people with size 11 feet in a book and I'm supposed to fight them. Does that mean I hate people with size 11 feet?

    Second, just because Tolkien makes a King appear in the book doesn't make him support a type of monarchy. Same as before, if I wrote a book and my main character becomes king, is that saying that I support having a monarchy?

    no way
    I concur:EVLWNS

    As I said before, I'm kind of exaggerating, but really: All the main characters in the Lord of the Rings are very European, speaking Elivish which (as I would kind of know, as I have translated Galadriel's entire farewell speech without looking at the official translation), is similar to European languages. The antagonists look, as I said, Middle-Eastern or Asian. If you were writing a book in which the antagonists were all 11 feet tall, no it would not mean you would hate people were were 11 feet tall: no one is 11 feet tall. You aren't correlating your antagonists--every one of them--with someone or something that exists.

    It wasn't because he made a character king. It was because since his family fell from the throne, evil spread over Middle-Earth. After the 9 kings were corrupted and after Isildur failed to throw away the ring. And I'm not saying he really supports a monarchy. As I said before, I don't know how to explain it.

    Maybe you should try reading the books, Jeeves."I don't intend to achieve immortality through my work. I intend to achieve it through not dying." -Woody Allen
    • CommentAuthorEVLWNS
    • CommentTimeMar 10th 2010
     
    I will leave you to your opinions, dementedcookies, however ill-informed I feel they may be."When I am, Death is not; and when Death is, I am not. Then why fear what I cannot be?"
    •  
      CommentAuthorInferno
    • CommentTimeMar 11th 2010
     
    Posted By: demented cookiesMaybe you should try reading the books, Jeeves.


    Way to have a go at your Boyfriend over the net!The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be. -Carl Sagan
  40.  
    Posted By: EVLWNSI will leave you to your opinions, dementedcookies, however ill-informed I feel they may be.

    Yes, now that I really put some thought into it, I just kind of came up with the second point to have something to argue about.
    However, I'm sticking to him being at least subconsciously racist.
    I would say more, but the bell just rang and I have to go to P.E."I don't intend to achieve immortality through my work. I intend to achieve it through not dying." -Woody Allen
  41.  
    Posted By: breezyspreezyyou can never match age=developmental stage anyway. in every aspect of every form of development each child has uniqueness.you are a lovely person, that's what i think!

    I know, and I stated as much. It's going to be different based on the child. But my statement would still stand regardless.
  42.  
    Posted By: demented cookies
    Posted By: EVLWNSI will leave you to your opinions, dementedcookies, however ill-informed I feel they may be.

    Yes, now that I really put some thought into it, I just kind of came up with the second point to have something to argue about.
    However, I'm sticking to him being at least subconsciously racist.
    I would say more, but the bell just rang and I have to go to P.E.


    Perhaps it can be more easily explained as a product of ethnocentrism. To Tolkien, the hero would obviously have to be from his own society, and the enemies would accordingly be from other parts of the world. It doesn't necesarily mean he is racist, or sees them as the inherent enemies of his own race, but that he sees the world as revolving around his own society first, and others second.
    Ethnocentrism was very prevalent in Europe, and now in America. I wouldn't call an America loving patriotic hillbilly racist just because he thinks his nation is the best. He is just a bit short sighted.
    • CommentAuthorEVLWNS
    • CommentTimeMar 11th 2010
     
    That's it, I can't stand this uninformed discussion any more. Everybody who's contributed to this discussion on Tolkien and his perceived racism, hold tight. Wait a good few hours and this post will be edited and refilled with info that will hopefully settle this."When I am, Death is not; and when Death is, I am not. Then why fear what I cannot be?"
    • CommentAuthorEVLWNS
    • CommentTimeMar 12th 2010
     
    On second thought, so that people know I've answered my own call, I'll make a new post.

    To understand all that is within Tolkien's so-called Legendarium, you must keep in mind that Tolkien was a brilliant and distinguished linguist (he's what's usually called a 'polyglot', and he was fluent in over a dozen languages, both alive and dead, and invented about a dozen more), mythologist, literary scholar, and thus also quite a historian. And you must also keep in mind that he was indeed very English, and VERY Catholic.

    One should look toward the Lord of the Rings, the Silmarillion, and even the Hobbit, as odes to and perfections of (in the eyes of Tolkien) ancient English and European mythology (and some elements may have come from even further afield). The reason that it has such English and European protagonists is because it is directly derived from and inspired by English and European, particualrly Northern European, myth and legend: the Volsungasaga, the Poetic Edda, Beowulf, the story of Atlantis, etc., etc., etc. It keeps in the fundamental traditions of those stories by having, well, Northern European protagonists (although it could be argued that the ultimate protagonist, Aragorn Elessar, is actually Mediterranean, or of an ethnicity that does not exist at all). The languages of the Elves, Quenya and Sindarin (amongst some others) are derived very largely from Finnish and Welsh respectively, the writing for which is derived directly from the scripts used to write Middle English and the like when they were written, and the languages of Man are derived from Latin, German, and what have you. Hell, even Dwarvish was apparently meant to sound Semitic (like Hebrew, or Arabic, since it is also a Semitic language). The Rohirrim are direct parallels of the ancient Middle-English and German horse-obsessed cultures. That is also why there are kings and the like all thoughout Middle Earth and the stories, because every freaking ancient culture had a king or lord of some kind or another, and Aragorn's kingship is meant to reflect a Christian sense of God's representative on Earth. Even the geography itself is meant to reflect the ancient European vision of the world.

    You're all looking to the wrong places for the ultimate antagonists, and looking too much into the details you find of them. You seem to think that the Haradrim (the black-skinned, Oliphaunt-riding, Egyptian- and Nubian-like Southern folk) or the Eastmen (who admittedly look quite Middle Eastern and Far Eastern in the film, but in the book are described as rather like Vikings) or the Corsairs (who, in the book, are meant to be distant kin of Aragorn, and are somewhat Mediterranean or North African in appearance) or the Orks (who, I must concede, are meant to have an appeance that directly ties in to the disgust Europeans of the old days had for the people of the Steppes - the Mongols, the Huns - as the invincible and innumberable conquering Horde) are the antagonists. Far from it! They are, at all times, all unwilling slaves and pawns for the true and Ultimate antagonists of the various works (and this is where Tolkien's Christianity comes into it): the Anti-Christ-like Sauron/Annatar (which mean, if you're interested, "The Abhorred" and "King Excellent" respectively); and beyond Sauron, the ultimate Master of Darkness, the direct parallel of Satan: Melkor the Morgoth, a sort of god of evil in the Greco-Roman sense, for those who haven't heard of him. These are all derivatives of European archetypes and sensibilities.

    Tolkien knew the evil of racism. Though a devout Christian, he was the best kind of Christian: an educated one, and one who was agreeable and not a total dick. There are various pieces of valuable (and I mean monetarily valuable; a letter can fetch hundreds of thousands) correspondance in which and amongst other things he states, sometimes outright, his contempt for racism and racist ideas. You must look at the content of the prose poetically, metaphorically in order to really understand it, and you must also keep in mind that he intended it for educated and literarily-knowledgeable Europeans. This is precisely why the Lord of the Rings is called one of the greatest stories ever written: it brilliantly draws on storytelling tropes and traditions literally thousands of years old.

    TL;DR: In summary, you musn't judge a man by the metaphors he uses. He had his reasons, and they were all necessary to tell the story the way he wanted it to be told.

    Holy shit, that's a lot of writing. But it was necessary to school you in the proper way to think about a great scholar and author."When I am, Death is not; and when Death is, I am not. Then why fear what I cannot be?"
    • CommentAuthorEVLWNS
    • CommentTimeMar 12th 2010
     
    Hmmm. It seems this is also somewhat on-topic, since Tolkien was a Christian and used Christian traditions in the Lord of the Rings. So it's another good thing to come from Christianity."When I am, Death is not; and when Death is, I am not. Then why fear what I cannot be?"
    •  
      CommentAuthorInferno
    • CommentTimeMar 12th 2010
     
    Posted By: EVLWNSHmmm. It seems this is also somewhat on-topic, since Tolkien was a Christian and used Christian traditions in the Lord of the Rings. So it's another good thing to come from Christianity.


    Don't forget Harry Potter, there's a lot of Christian ideology behind that too!
    I concur: EVLWNS
    The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be. -Carl Sagan
    • CommentAuthorEVLWNS
    • CommentTimeMar 12th 2010
     
    Posted By: InfernoDon't forget Harry Potter, there's a lot of Christian ideology behind that too!


    Yes, despite what the fuckwit fundamentalists say."When I am, Death is not; and when Death is, I am not. Then why fear what I cannot be?"
  48.  
    Tom Araya...Atleast he believes in hippie jesus opposed to Hitler jesus.
    •  
      CommentAuthorStevo
    • CommentTimeMar 15th 2010
     
    I worship the jesus that parties in a tuxedo. all night long.

    and spongebob.
    one day im going to create a conglomerate of all the things i worship.Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.

51 to 99 of 99

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. >

This discussion is closed because it has been inactive for longer than 60 days. Why not start a new discussion?