NY Teacher Doesn't Know What (S)he's talking about re: mat..

"Larry Swain" wrote in message

> NY Teacher wrote:
>> "Larry Swain" wrote in message
>>
>>
>>>NY Teacher wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Larry Swain" wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>NY Teacher wrote:
>>>>><snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>Still waiting.......
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On what? Learning to not be an insulting, arrogant prick?
>>>
>>>ON you backing up your claims. By the way, one wonders why I'm arrogant
>>>speaking about something in which I have a level of expertise, but you're
>>>speaking on a subject that you're depending on what you think you
>>>remember being told by someone thirty years ago, but that isn't
>>>arrogance? Who is more arrogant then? In my book it would be the person
>>>speaking on memories and unsubstantiated conversations rather than
>>>someone with a certifiable level of expertise. Just me though,
>>>undoubtedly you're the sort to ask medical advice from your plumber who
>>>had surgery once, right?
>>
>>
>> You are arrogant in believing that you have the *ONLY* valid
>> interpretation of Tolkien,
>
> Nope, been involved in many discussions here where I've been proven
> wrong and have learned a great deal from those I've argued with. Read
> many good books and articles on Tolkien from many different perspectives
> too.
>

Then there's hope you may go back to such open-minded ways.


>
> and *ALL* the answers in regards to an ideology as complex
>> (socially, culturally, geographically and temporally) as Catholicism.
>
> Oh certainly not *ALL*, not even close, just more than you since I'm not
> trying to remember what someone told me 30 years ago, and actually have
> done a bit of research into Tolkien's Catholicism and its influence on
> his scholarship and fiction.
>

Another form of arrogance is to assume you know something, like that you
know more than someone else based on 1 thing they said or wrote.

>
> I
>> already conceded your level of expertise in regards to medieval
>> catholicism,
>
> You did? Where? I must have missed it.

No surprise, you seem to miss quite a lot.

>
>> and already pointed out your failings in regards to modern.
>
> Again, where? Because I didn't consider the possibility that in some
> parishes in the US, widowers are being accepted as priests? Hardly much
> of a failing, and certainly not on topic.

It is on topic for this topic, and is certainly a failing. How small or
large is irrelevent. How arrogant of you, again, to dismiss your own faults
as minor and enlarge those of others.


>
> My claim that I
>> repeatedly tried to tie teh argument into Tolkien can be found in between
>> those timeframes...i posited that Tolkien's catholicism was possibly not
>> the same as Rome's,
>
> As I quoted you saying before, you said that Tolkien's catholicism WAS
> LIKELY not the same, that's not just a possibility, but a likelihood. I
> asked for evidence, you've given none.

And neither have you. My statement was based on logic - since every other
time and culture modifies catholicism *in some way*, it is likely that the
catholicism of Tolkien's England was also *in some way* different. Either
attack the logic or provide specific examples to disprove it. Either way,
the onus is on you.


>
> gave reasons for that likelihood,
>
> A fallacious one.

Prove it.

>
> and welcomed *discussion*
>> on that idea...
>
> Which you were presented with.

No, you presented hubris and insult.

>
> but was meant with your response that I needed to prove the
>> ideologies dissimilar...you missed the point then, just like you miss the
>> point now.
>
> I see. So we can use any old thought that comes to mind and expect it
> to be welcomed, eh, even if off topic, erroneous, and fallacious?

I suppose netiquette would say no, but grow up. If you don't think the
discussion is on topic, ignore it. If you must reply, get off your high
horse about topicality, because by responding you have added to it. Again,
you arrogance: Its okay for Larry Swain to discuss things off-topic, but
not for anyone else.


>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Start with Dale
>>>
>>>>Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People.
>>>
>>>You should, and I think it would probably tell you that taking threads
>>>off topic and then claiming that its ok and then changing your tune again
>>>claiming that your off topic posts were really on topic is probably not
>>>the way to win friends and influence people,
>>
>>
>> It's part of the curriculum I teach and, unless there is a new printing,
>> has nothing to do with usenet threads.
>
> Indeed, it doesn't, and one wonders why you brought it up in the first
> place.

Because you obviously need it.

>
> Again, wrap your medieval mind around
>> this while you continue doing Saint Vitus' dance with your member: I
>> followed a natural flow of the thread, attempted to bring it back to
>> Tolkien, then got caught responding to you.
>
> Liar.

Right back at you.

If you reread our exchange you kept making points about your
> opinions that had nothing to do with Tolkien. I kept encouraging you to
> keep it on topic and you justified your off topic responses by pointing
> to thread drift as being acceptable.

I have re-read our exchange, and the thread that it grew out of...until you
got involved, I kept discussing Tolkien.


>
> My mistake, I should never have
>> gotten into a pissing contest with a person holding a PhD in piss.
>
> Didn't want a pissing contest, I'd win.

Obviously, you have a lot of experience...

I wanted you to stay on topic
> and wanted then what I want now: substantiation for your categorical
> statements. If you can not provide them, simply apologize.

No need to provide anything, since - once again - i was making a statement
based on logic. Prove the logic wrong, or provide evidence to the contrary.


>
> By the
>> way, the planet is not flat and the sun does not circle the Earth.
>
> You've mastered the obvious, good for you.

Have you, master of medievalism?


>>
>>
>> and when
>>
>>>corrected degrading into personal attacks probably doesn't help either.
>>>Now, care to substantiate your claims either from the text or get your
>>>father in law on here, or care to apologize? I'll take either one.
>>
>>
>>
>> You began the personal attacks, and I have responded in kind.
>
> No, I simply remarked that apparently you weren't paying attention in
> class.

An insult.

You took umbrage at an assessment of your remembering something
> from 30 years ago. You further attempted to chuff up your position and
> your member by appealing to nuns and your father in law, and when
> challenged that these sources perhaps are not the best, you went off.

An insult to them, as well. Sorry, but I will take the theology of a priest
and nuns over some ivory-towered almost-PhD in an obscure tangential field.


>
> Childish,
>> yes, but normal. I will not drag my father-in-law into this any further,
>
> Most likely because contrary to your claim, he does not hold the opinion
> of God's involvement in the NT vs. the OT that you do. Confirmation
> enough.

Yet he does. Would you, in my shoes, provide his personal information over
the usenet, in the day and age of identity theft? If you would, then you
are proiven to be a fool as well as an arrogant prick. If not, then we need
to agree that there is nothing I can do to prove his veracity. You can
either then accept what I say (impossible for you based upon your obviously
closed mind) or not, and move on.



>
> as
>> there would be no way to prove his veracity, and no way to overcome your
>> arrogance. He told me in several lengthy discussions that catholicism
>> views god's interventions in the NT (and since) to be more subtle, less
>> overt, less extraordinary and yet - and here is the miracle of it all -
>> more effective.
>
> Which of course is wrong, as a detailed comparison between them shows.

In your opinion.

> The Incarnation and Resurrection are subtle and less extraordinary?
> Raising the dead is subtle and less extraordinary? Feeding 5000 people
> with a loaf of bread and a couple fish is subtle and less extraordinary?
> Healing lepers and other illnesses with just a word, sometimes not even
> having to be present, and doing so in public is more subtle and less
> extraordinary? Choirs of angels filling the sky on a night is more
> subtle and less extraordinary? The Day of Pentecost is more subtle and
> less extraordinary? Walking on water (and I don't mean on snow and ice)
> is more subtle and less extraordinary? Turning jugs of water from the
> well into some pretty kick ass wine is more subtle and less
> extraordinary? Delivering a man sentenced to die locked in a prison by
> sending an angel is more subtle and less extraordinary? Being bitten by
> a poisonous snake and living to tell the tale without medical treatment
> of any kind is more subtle and less extraordinary? Methinks thou dost
> protest too much.

Compared to: the seven plagues, changing everyone's language, the
destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Flood, directly providing the 10
commandments, etc.?

YES, everything you listed would *today* be seen as extraordinary. Today,
god seems content to show up on pancakes and tortillas and grilled cheese
sandwiches. BUT, compare your list to what he did in the OT, and it is much
more subtle: Turn someone to a pillar of salt or drown the world because
you're pissed and you will get lots of attention (some real, mostly feigned,
probably); make a whole lot of bread appear out of one loaf and soemone will
be impressed, sure, but worshipful???

I return your thoughts in spades...I think you are so insecure in your own
faith and scholarship that you protest too much.


>
> Even the few examples of events in the Christian OT that do not have
> direct analogues in the NT are balanced by the events in the NT that do
> not have direct analogues in the OT.
>
> A Jesuit friend of mine loves the move "The Sant Claus" because
>> one elf responds to the statement "I'll believe it when I see it," with
>> the philosophical "You've got that backwards."
>
> Yes, a take off of Anselm of Canterbury's famous dictum from Cur Deus
> Homo: I believe that I may understand. IE, I see it when I believe it.

I already accepted your level of knowledge in medieval matters.

>
>
> I once asked him why he liked
>> that so much, and he launched into a lengthy discussion of how the NT god
>> saught faith spawned by free will, not faith spawned by flashy displays
>> of god-like power.
>
> Rather like the "OT god"....who sought faith spawned by free will in
> that place....what was it called? Oh yes, EDEN....faith spawned by free
> will is what the story is all about!

Free will in Eden...haven't talked to anyone about that before. I will have
to reflect on it some more and re-read the text, but my gut reaction is that
free will was what the serpent was offering...and if so, that would have
very big theological ramifications. But, like I said, I need to reflect on
that some and talk to some people.


>
>
> That matches up with what the nuns taught me way back when,
>> matches up with what I heard from my parish priest this Sunday when I
>> stopped to talk to him after mass, was a lecture topic when I took "Bible
>> as Literature" as an undergrad, and seems to be understood as a concept
>> by everyone *except you.*
>
> <sarcasm>Well, I must be stupid then when I don't teach such an idea in
> my Bible as Literature classes or when I teach history of biblical
> exegesis. Thanks for setting me straight.</sarcasm>

never said you were stupid, thank you. And a Bible as Lit class can't cover
everything that the Bible touches on, obviously. Besides, I was refering to
a theological interpretation of the Bible as presented by those
individuals...Bible as Lit and Biblical Exegesis would only barely touch on
that, if at all.


>
>
> It is clearly an idea that Tolkien would
>> intellectually consider, if not agree with. That is what makes you an
>> arrogant prick.
>
> Proof? None? Huh, well then, t'would seem to poor arrogant me that the
> arrogant one is he who proclaims something as a truth without any
> evidence other than his own authoritative voice. Worse that when asked
> for substantiation of claims, the one in question goes off on long
> personal attacks.

Personal attacks were begun by you, I only retaliated in kind. As I said,
the proof in this case would be in the negative...so provide some...


>
> Problem is of course that "I believe that I may understand" or the
> notion of faith vs. "flashy displays of godlike power" aren't what
> you've been claiming re: Tolkien. You've been claiming that there's a
> dichotomy between God's involvement in human affairs in the Christian OT
> and the NT, the latter being "more subtle" and "less extraordinary."

That was only the start of my argument...
I also said that I noticed that the Valar, in my opinion, were more subtle
and less extraordinary in their dealings with Sauron than they were with
Melkor.
Then, I asked for opinions as to whether or not this was intentional,
unintentional, or some other option.

Rather than engage in a discussion on the question, you attacked my
supposition about God's involvement (fair enough). When I responded, you
attacked my knowledge and me. You even went so far as to start a new
thread, this one, specifically attacking me.



>
>>
>> I questioned, whether Tolkien intentionally followed a similar path in
>> regards to the Valar and their intercessions in Middle Earth. Rather
>> than engage in a civil discussion, you got your panties in a bunch and
>> started insulting people.
>
>
> Really?


yep.


>
> My first response to you on 8/19:
> Rather than a difference between "OT" and NT, its more a difference
> between God as presented in the Bible, directly involved in human affairs,
> and God as known in the Christian Ages, less directly involved and working
> through the paraclete and the church.
>
> What was insulting about that? No bunched panties there.
>
> My second response to you is here:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.tolkien/browse_thread/thread/77...6a14495
>
> Again, where's the insult?
>
> Here's the third, responding after you assured us all that you knew the
> facts cause some nuns told it to you 30 years ago in middle America:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.tolkien/browse_thread/thread/77...6a14495
>
> No insult there either. Oh sure, you took offense at a comment, but you
> taking offense and my offering insult are not the same thing.
>
> You have yet to answer the issue I keep putting before you: substantiate
> the claim. Better had you spent your energies on doing some reading in
> the Bible, Christian thought, and Tolkien to prove me wrong rather than
> going off on a lengthy personal attack. Or you could apologize.
>

The insult began with "I can't help it if you were taught incorrectly or
weren't paying particular attention that day."

Minor, yes, but an insult none-the-less. Especially from someone with
scholarly ambitions.

Now, you insult me by telling me to read the Bible or Christian theology or
Tolkien. Again, if something doesn't match your views, you assume it to be
worthless.

I have already addressed your calls for "substantiating" the claim. I have
offered discussions with learned authorities, you have ignored them because
I will not give names on an open forum.

In regards to apologies, the floor is open for you to begin. Show yourself
to not be an arrogant prick by apologizing for insulting me and for having a
closed mind.


>
> Not surprising, considering your past. Remember this?
>> ""Clearly, you want the world to view all things Tolkien as only Larry
>> Swain would have them be." Arrogance. and a history of it.
>
> Indeed I do. It was a comment by Michael Martinez. Perhaps you should
> ask some folk around these groups about MM before you take his comments
> about me too seriously. MM and I have long buried the hatchet, and even
> at the time had you read the thread you'll have noted that I had positive
> things to say about MM. But you didn't bother to read....too eager to
> find dirt on me.

I'd hardly call it dirt, just an example of continuing behavior.


>
>>
>> I pity the poor saps who listen to you defend your dissertation...it will
>> be a long night of "Larry Swain knows All."
>
> Well, at least on the topic of the dissertation, I do, which is kinda the
> point of doing the exercise, to know more than anyone else in the world
> regarding the topic on which you are writing some 500 pages. I'm sure the
> internationally recognized group of scholars on my committee will no doubt
> appreciate your comments, especially characterizing them as "saps."

Agreed on the topic of the dissertion. My apologies to your committee
members.


>
> But, I pity any students you may
>> eventually have, especially those who want to learn by questioning.
>
> You could benefit from my classes.

Highly doubtful. I have taken Bible as lit already, and graduate level
courses in theology on a not-for-credit basis. medievalism interests me
only so much as how it's misconstrued as the "dark ages," and people were
actally quite sophisticated and often enlightened. If NYS gave more
curricular freedom to its social studies teachers, I would spend more than 1
day on the middle ages, but alas, thats all the time that can be alloted.

I've been teaching in higher
> education for 12 years, and teaching at lower levels far longer. I've won
> awards, and have students take other classes and change majors because of
> classes they've taken with me. Where have you offered any "questions?"
> Your one question was addressed, you said I was wrong because some nuns
> told you something different 30 years ago, and then that your
> father-in-law told you, and now some claim about a Bible as Lit
> course...and I have pointed out that these sources need to be
> investigated, but they can not be whereas the writings of Tolkien can be,
> the Bible can be, Catholic writers can be.

Agreed that in a discussion, the credentials of so-called experts need to be
investigated. Would you like me to give you my father-in-laws phone number?
Sorry, I am not willing to do that. Are you willing to put your phone
number out in the open for him to call you? Do you want to see the syllabus
for my Bible as Lit course?


>
> So let's start with a puzzle: how is how Abraham came to have faith
> different than what happens in the NT? In fact, Abraham believes, does he
> not, without seeing any miracles whatsoever, no flash, no show, no voice
> out of the heavens (it doesn't say HOW God spoke to him, unlike say the
> Sinai experience).

The miracle of Isaac's birth at Sarah's great age? How about being led to
Canaan? You must admit you are engaged in sophistry when you say no voice
out of the heavens...Abraham STILL heard God's voice.


On the other hand, none of Jesus' disciples
> believe WITHOUT SEEING HIS RESURRECTED BODY, they believe because they do
> see, prompting Jesus to say "Blessed are those who believe and do not
> see." So how is it that you can claim that the NT is more subtle and less
> flashy?

Appearing to a small band in an isolated part of an empire is, to me, not
very flashy. Compare it to what god could have done to get his point across
regarding Jesus: levelled a city? killed off the first born sons of all of
Jesus' persecutors? Opened up the heavens and let forth an angelic concert
that all the world (or at least the Roman world) could see? Is resurrection
and appearance before people a miracle? Of course, and its "showy," too.
But compared to how God could have done it, compared to actions in the OT,
its mellow and subtle. It is part of the miracle that it worked,
nonetheless.

Reminds me of a joke my old pastor once said...Why was God so full of fire
and brimstone in the OT, and preachign love and forgiveness in the NT?
Well, everyone mellows after having a kid.

Corny joke, but its what I've been saying...and asking if Tolkien paralleled
it.
 >> Stay informed about: NY Teacher Doesn't Know What (S)he's talking about re: mat.. 

NY Teacher wrote:
> "Larry Swain" wrote in message
>
>
>>NY Teacher wrote:
>>
>>>"Larry Swain" wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>NY Teacher wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Larry Swain" wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>NY Teacher wrote:
>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Still waiting.......
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>On what? Learning to not be an insulting, arrogant prick?
>>>>
>>>>ON you backing up your claims. By the way, one wonders why I'm arrogant
>>>>speaking about something in which I have a level of expertise, but you're
>>>>speaking on a subject that you're depending on what you think you
>>>>remember being told by someone thirty years ago, but that isn't
>>>>arrogance? Who is more arrogant then? In my book it would be the person
>>>>speaking on memories and unsubstantiated conversations rather than
>>>>someone with a certifiable level of expertise. Just me though,
>>>>undoubtedly you're the sort to ask medical advice from your plumber who
>>>>had surgery once, right?
>>>
>>>
>>>You are arrogant in believing that you have the *ONLY* valid
>>>interpretation of Tolkien,
>>
>>Nope, been involved in many discussions here where I've been proven
>>wrong and have learned a great deal from those I've argued with. Read
>>many good books and articles on Tolkien from many different perspectives
>>too.
>>
>
>
> Then there's hope you may go back to such open-minded ways.

I've never left them. Just because I said that your pet idea doesn't
fly is no reason to assume I'm not open minded or in believing I have
the only valid interpretations. That's why we discuss things on here.
>
>
>
>> and *ALL* the answers in regards to an ideology as complex
>>
>>>(socially, culturally, geographically and temporally) as Catholicism.
>>
>>Oh certainly not *ALL*, not even close, just more than you since I'm not
>>trying to remember what someone told me 30 years ago, and actually have
>>done a bit of research into Tolkien's Catholicism and its influence on
>>his scholarship and fiction.
>>
>
>
> Another form of arrogance is to assume you know something,

But I'm not assuming that I know it. I DO know it. Other people who
know it test me on my knowledge of knowing it and have given their
collective imprimatur saying I know it.

like that you
> know more than someone else based on 1 thing they said or wrote.

What else is there to go on? Present some evidence that you do.

>
>
>> I
>>
>>>already conceded your level of expertise in regards to medieval
>>>catholicism,
>>
>>You did? Where? I must have missed it.
>
>
> No surprise, you seem to miss quite a lot.

Ah, no quote or citation of concession, I note, so probably doesn't
exist, at least not in rabt.

>
>
>>>and already pointed out your failings in regards to modern.
>>
>>Again, where? Because I didn't consider the possibility that in some
>>parishes in the US, widowers are being accepted as priests? Hardly much
>>of a failing, and certainly not on topic.
>
>
> It is on topic for this topic, and is certainly a failing.

How so? I never made a claim to knowing everything and this didn't
occur to me, nor should it have since its a rather unique situation. I
then also admitted I hadn't thought of it. Not sure how we can get a
"failing" out of that. But I know it makes you feel good to think so.

How small or
> large is irrelevent. How arrogant of you, again, to dismiss your own faults
> as minor and enlarge those of others.

How is not thinking of an extremely unique ordination situation a fault?
And where have I enlarged yours? Or is the shoe really on the other
foot==you are enlarging mine and minimizing your own, but trying not to
let anyone see that strategy?

>
>
>
>> My claim that I
>>
>>>repeatedly tried to tie teh argument into Tolkien can be found in between
>>>those timeframes...i posited that Tolkien's catholicism was possibly not
>>>the same as Rome's,
>>
>>As I quoted you saying before, you said that Tolkien's catholicism WAS
>>LIKELY not the same, that's not just a possibility, but a likelihood. I
>>asked for evidence, you've given none.
>
>
> And neither have you.

Actually I have, I pointed to the catechisms, the church fathers, and
Biblical examples.

My statement was based on logic -

Fallacious logic, yes, the use of a fallacy makes the argument an
invalid one.

since every other
> time and culture modifies catholicism *in some way*, it is likely that the
> catholicism of Tolkien's England was also *in some way* different.

Much depends on what you mean by "catholicism" that can be altered. But
the problem doesn't lie there so much as you jumped from this general
truth to the specific suggestion that therefore Tolkien's ideas about
the Bible were also *in some way* different than the church's. Sorry,
fallacious.


Either
> attack the logic

I did that, back when you first presented it and again above.

or provide specific examples to disprove it.

And did that too.


Either way,
> the onus is on you.

Um, no....the onus is on the one who asserts the proposition. You
asserted the likelihood that Tolkien's Catholicism differed, but have
not shown how or in what ways. It doesn't naturally follow from a
proposition that is questionable anyway.

>
>
>> gave reasons for that likelihood,
>>
>>A fallacious one.
>
>
> Prove it.

Done already.
>
>> and welcomed *discussion*
>>
>>>on that idea...
>>
>>Which you were presented with.
>
>
> No, you presented hubris and insult.

Neither one.

>
>
>>but was meant with your response that I needed to prove the
>>
>>>ideologies dissimilar...you missed the point then, just like you miss the
>>>point now.
>>
>>I see. So we can use any old thought that comes to mind and expect it
>>to be welcomed, eh, even if off topic, erroneous, and fallacious?
>
>
> I suppose netiquette would say no, but grow up.

I've grown up quite well thank you. You presented an idea, I showed why
it doesn't work, you got angry and have spent loads of time creating
posts that only attack me. Even if I did insult you (which I would say
I didn't at first), I didn't compose long messages of insults. You did.
What if I responded in kind?


If you don't think the
> discussion is on topic, ignore it.

Wait, aren't you the one who's been screaming "Don't tell me what to
do?" So I can't say to you to not post off topic responses to my
messages, but you can not only post off topic at will and tell me to
ignore it? Talk about growing up, son. No, really, listen to
yourself...and ask why you're so peeved that I asked you not to respond
with off topic responses when responding to me. What's the deal?


If you must reply, get off your high
> horse about topicality, because by responding you have added to it.

Wow, and you accuse me of hubris! You'll note however that I didn't
"add to it", but turned the discussion back to Tolkien, such as in this
exchange:

You: "> Faulty logic. It may have been a better time somewhere else or
some other time. That it succeeded when it did and where it did is not
sufficient to say it was the "perfect time" for it.


Me: Perhaps, but entirely immaterial to the discussion, since the point
once again is what would have influenced Tolkien to write things as he
did. Your problems with the logic of a conservative Christian position
held for centuries doesn't matter to that issue."



Again,
> you arrogance: Its okay for Larry Swain to discuss things off-topic, but
> not for anyone else.

Discuss things off topic all you like, I may even join in. I simply
asked that you take it to a new thread. I certainly never said that you
shouldn't engage in off topic posts. You seem to have read that into
it, oh and said something churlish and puerile "don't tell me what to
do". How like a 6 year old can you get? Oh wait, I forgot, this was all
about me....you're completely innocent, the victim of a mean ol'
arrogant prick, right?
>
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Start with Dale
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People.
>>>>
>>>>You should, and I think it would probably tell you that taking threads
>>>>off topic and then claiming that its ok and then changing your tune again
>>>>claiming that your off topic posts were really on topic is probably not
>>>>the way to win friends and influence people,
>>>
>>>
>>>It's part of the curriculum I teach and, unless there is a new printing,
>>>has nothing to do with usenet threads.
>>
>>Indeed, it doesn't, and one wonders why you brought it up in the first
>>place.
>
>
> Because you obviously need it.

Why how magnanimous of you! Caring for my welfare! Interesting though
that such careful thought for my well being is couched in what you would
call an insult. Now above you excoriate me for this perceived insult,
and yet you feel free to offer your own. Isn't that hypocrisy?
>
>
>> Again, wrap your medieval mind around
>>
>>>this while you continue doing Saint Vitus' dance with your member: I
>>>followed a natural flow of the thread, attempted to bring it back to
>>>Tolkien, then got caught responding to you.
>>
>>Liar.
>
>
> Right back at you.

How childish. But I haven't lied about anything. ON the other hand,
below you admit your lie when you confess that you went off topic in
your responses to me.
>
> If you reread our exchange you kept making points about your
>
>>opinions that had nothing to do with Tolkien. I kept encouraging you to
>>keep it on topic and you justified your off topic responses by pointing
>>to thread drift as being acceptable.
>
>
> I have re-read our exchange, and the thread that it grew out of...until you
> got involved, I kept discussing Tolkien.

And one wonders why you began to go off topic there...I certainly
wasn't, and if you reread the exchange you'll note that you went off
topic before I assessed your attentiveness in school.

>
>
>> My mistake, I should never have
>>
>>>gotten into a pissing contest with a person holding a PhD in piss.
>>
>>Didn't want a pissing contest, I'd win.
>
>
> Obviously, you have a lot of experience...

No, just a lot of ability.
>
> I wanted you to stay on topic
>
>>and wanted then what I want now: substantiation for your categorical
>>statements. If you can not provide them, simply apologize.
>
>
> No need to provide anything, since - once again - i was making a statement
> based on logic. Prove the logic wrong, or provide evidence to the contrary.

ALready done.
>
>
>
>> By the
>>
>>>way, the planet is not flat and the sun does not circle the Earth.
>>
>>You've mastered the obvious, good for you.
>
>
> Have you, master of medievalism?

I've certainly mastered the obvious in that this whole, long,
sad discussion is now all about your wounded pride and not about the topic.

I've also mastered the obvious in that medieval thinkers did not think
the planet was flat, and that the belief in the sun's rotation around
the earth was obvious to them based on observation, and was as much
theological as scientific--a view imitated by Tolkien btw.
>
>
>>>
>>>and when
>>>
>>>
>>>>corrected degrading into personal attacks probably doesn't help either.
>>>>Now, care to substantiate your claims either from the text or get your
>>>>father in law on here, or care to apologize? I'll take either one.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>You began the personal attacks, and I have responded in kind.
>>
>>No, I simply remarked that apparently you weren't paying attention in
>>class.
>
>
> An insult.

I suppose if all those who competed at the recent Olympics in judged
events were judged not to have earned gold medals can be said to have
been insulted by those judges, then I suppose I insulted you.
Otherwise, it was simply an assessment. You could choose to prove the
assessment incorrect by impressing us with your detailed knowledge of
the subject, but I've found that usually those who can't do that write
long diatribes like this.
>
> You took umbrage at an assessment of your remembering something
>
>>from 30 years ago. You further attempted to chuff up your position and
>>your member by appealing to nuns and your father in law, and when
>>challenged that these sources perhaps are not the best, you went off.
>
>
> An insult to them, as well.

Not really, because the issue wasn't really about them per se, but
rather about second and third hand reporting about what they allegedly
said.


Sorry, but I will take the theology of a priest
> and nuns over some ivory-towered almost-PhD in an obscure tangential field.


TSK TSK TSK TSK, all that research to come up with quotes against me and
yet you missed the essentials. The field is certainly not obscure, and
what I do isn't tangential, particularly if we're discussing views of
the Bible by the Roman Catholic Church in England that influenced
Tolkien...which we were. Or I was, as I made clear.
>
>
>
>> Childish,
>>
>>>yes, but normal. I will not drag my father-in-law into this any further,
>>
>>Most likely because contrary to your claim, he does not hold the opinion
>>of God's involvement in the NT vs. the OT that you do. Confirmation
>>enough.
>
>
> Yet he does.

Says you.

Would you, in my shoes, provide his personal information over
> the usenet, in the day and age of identity theft? If you would, then you
> are proiven to be a fool as well as an arrogant prick.

Ah yes....taking the high road, eh? You could have done as I suggested
when I first brought it up: invite him to take part on here for the
purposes of discussion. Alternatively, you could use my email address
above: tis a real email address. Or you could have asked me for an
email address at which he could contact me. By the way, since you
didn't think of these things, do these count as failings on your part?
Just wondering.......

If not, then we need
> to agree that there is nothing I can do to prove his veracity. You can
> either then accept what I say (impossible for you based upon your obviously
> closed mind) or not, and move on.

You apparently haven't been around these groups long. Nobody gets away
with "you'll just have to take my word for it". There have been long
discussions citing minutiae in Tolkien's works, letters, and scholarship
to prove a point....and not even always by me. Sorry, you'll have to do
better than "cause someone told me and you'll just have to accept that
its true."
>
>
>
>>as
>>
>>>there would be no way to prove his veracity, and no way to overcome your
>>>arrogance. He told me in several lengthy discussions that catholicism
>>>views god's interventions in the NT (and since) to be more subtle, less
>>>overt, less extraordinary and yet - and here is the miracle of it all -
>>>more effective.
>>
>>Which of course is wrong, as a detailed comparison between them shows.
>
>
> In your opinion.

In my considered, educated, informed opinion. Hey, I have an idea,
there are several email lists to which I belong that are populated by
and for scholars of Biblical Studies from all faith stripes. Let's take
it there and see what they say. We can even ask the moderators to let
us do a poll....what do you say? Crosstalk, Biblical Studies, B-Latin,
Ancient Near East are all at Yahoo as is E-Matthew, B-Hebrew, B-Greek,
Gospel of Mark, Corpus Paulum, are all at Ibiblio...take your pick or
suggest one of your own.
>
>
>>The Incarnation and Resurrection are subtle and less extraordinary?
>>Raising the dead is subtle and less extraordinary? Feeding 5000 people
>>with a loaf of bread and a couple fish is subtle and less extraordinary?
>>Healing lepers and other illnesses with just a word, sometimes not even
>>having to be present, and doing so in public is more subtle and less
>>extraordinary? Choirs of angels filling the sky on a night is more
>>subtle and less extraordinary? The Day of Pentecost is more subtle and
>>less extraordinary? Walking on water (and I don't mean on snow and ice)
>>is more subtle and less extraordinary? Turning jugs of water from the
>>well into some pretty kick ass wine is more subtle and less
>>extraordinary? Delivering a man sentenced to die locked in a prison by
>>sending an angel is more subtle and less extraordinary? Being bitten by
>>a poisonous snake and living to tell the tale without medical treatment
>>of any kind is more subtle and less extraordinary? Methinks thou dost
>>protest too much.
>
>
> Compared to: the seven plagues,

there were ten, actually, and yes, compared to those, since 9 of them
were nature miracles as many of those in the NT are. But you might take
a look at this book in the NT called Revelation which promises that God
will in fact do far more than the mere ten plagues and a couple wars.
Since its in the NT, it counts.

changing everyone's language,

indeed, and answered in the Day of Pentecost where Babel is reversed.

the
> destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah,

to paraphrase an argument you use below: a couple small towns in an
obscure part of the world whose destruction is otherwise not recorded.
Yeah, considering the lightning storms a couple weeks ago and the damage
they caused, I'd have to say curing disease and raising the dead
counters the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

the Flood,

the promised destruction by fire?

directly providing the 10
> commandments, etc.?

Mount Transfiguration, Paul's conversion on the Damascus Road, speaking
to crowds of people gathered at the Jordan....

>
> YES, everything you listed would *today* be seen as extraordinary.

So raising the dead was hum drum in the Bible days, eh? Huh.


Today,
> god seems content to show up on pancakes and tortillas and grilled cheese
> sandwiches. BUT, compare your list to what he did in the OT, and it is much
> more subtle: Turn someone to a pillar of salt or drown the world because
> you're pissed and you will get lots of attention

So these garnered God more attention than raising the dead, healing a
man at a long distance by just his word, making the lame walk....

(some real, mostly feigned,
> probably); make a whole lot of bread appear out of one loaf and soemone will
> be impressed, sure, but worshipful???

they wanted to make him a king! "This is truly the Prophet who is to
come into the world." Who worshipped God after Sodom and Gomorrah who
wasn't already worshipping him?
>
> I return your thoughts in spades...I think you are so insecure in your own
> faith and scholarship that you protest too much.

Nice try. I'm quite confidence in my scholarship, and you are not a
judge of my faith, not unless you have a good deal more hubris than you
ascribe to me!

>
>>Even the few examples of events in the Christian OT that do not have
>>direct analogues in the NT are balanced by the events in the NT that do
>>not have direct analogues in the OT.
>>
>> A Jesuit friend of mine loves the move "The Sant Claus" because
>>
>>>one elf responds to the statement "I'll believe it when I see it," with
>>>the philosophical "You've got that backwards."
>>
>>Yes, a take off of Anselm of Canterbury's famous dictum from Cur Deus
>>Homo: I believe that I may understand. IE, I see it when I believe it.
>
>
> I already accepted your level of knowledge in medieval matters.

Indeed, just sharing information.
>
>
>>
>> I once asked him why he liked
>>
>>>that so much, and he launched into a lengthy discussion of how the NT god
>>>saught faith spawned by free will, not faith spawned by flashy displays
>>>of god-like power.
>>
>>Rather like the "OT god"....who sought faith spawned by free will in
>>that place....what was it called? Oh yes, EDEN....faith spawned by free
>>will is what the story is all about!
>
>
> Free will in Eden...haven't talked to anyone about that before.

Really? Interesting, its one of the central questions of Christian
theology. One of the classic works is by Augustine, On the Free Choice
of the Will. Of course, for the most part Augustine is addressing the
question from a philosophical view, but he nonetheless does mention Adam
and Eve.

I will have
> to reflect on it some more and re-read the text, but my gut reaction is that
> free will was what the serpent was offering...

That's an interesting reading and I think fraught with problems. For
one thing, if Adam and Eve did not have the free will to either obey or
disobey God's command, that means that God willed them to take the fruit
and be disobedient, and therefore sin is God's fault. It would also
mean that if faith in God is a choice, then faith as an exercise of free
will (I believe so that I may understand) is therefore a result of
original sin (since it requires free will, what the serpent offered.)


and if so, that would have
> very big theological ramifications. But, like I said, I need to reflect on
> that some and talk to some people.
>
>
>
>>
>> That matches up with what the nuns taught me way back when,
>>
>>>matches up with what I heard from my parish priest this Sunday when I
>>>stopped to talk to him after mass, was a lecture topic when I took "Bible
>>>as Literature" as an undergrad, and seems to be understood as a concept
>>>by everyone *except you.*
>>
>><sarcasm>Well, I must be stupid then when I don't teach such an idea in
>>my Bible as Literature classes or when I teach history of biblical
>>exegesis. Thanks for setting me straight.</sarcasm>
>
>
> never said you were stupid, thank you. And a Bible as Lit class can't cover
> everything that the Bible touches on, obviously.

But a Sunday sermon can? Your "Bible as Literature can?


Besides, I was refering to
> a theological interpretation of the Bible as presented by those
> individuals...Bible as Lit and Biblical Exegesis would only barely touch on
> that, if at all.

Anything I say you will take as a put down, so I will say nothing........

>
>
>>
>> It is clearly an idea that Tolkien would
>>
>>>intellectually consider, if not agree with. That is what makes you an
>>>arrogant prick.
>>
>>Proof? None? Huh, well then, t'would seem to poor arrogant me that the
>>arrogant one is he who proclaims something as a truth without any
>>evidence other than his own authoritative voice. Worse that when asked
>>for substantiation of claims, the one in question goes off on long
>>personal attacks.
>
>
> Personal attacks were begun by you, I only retaliated in kind.

Not really, I only assessed your memory of things related after 30
years. Call it an insult if you like, but as I've said before, I've not
even begun to insult you.


As I said,
> the proof in this case would be in the negative...so provide some...

But I'm not the one asserting that your reading of the Bible is one that
would occur to Tolkien. You are.
>
>
>
>>Problem is of course that "I believe that I may understand" or the
>>notion of faith vs. "flashy displays of godlike power" aren't what
>>you've been claiming re: Tolkien. You've been claiming that there's a
>>dichotomy between God's involvement in human affairs in the Christian OT
>>and the NT, the latter being "more subtle" and "less extraordinary."
>
>
> That was only the start of my argument...
> I also said that I noticed that the Valar, in my opinion, were more subtle
> and less extraordinary in their dealings with Sauron than they were with
> Melkor.

And I addressed that as well.

> Then, I asked for opinions as to whether or not this was intentional,
> unintentional, or some other option.

and I replied, so sorry you didn't get the accolades you apparently
think you deserve.
>
> Rather than engage in a discussion on the question, you attacked my
> supposition about God's involvement (fair enough).

I didn't attack anything. I did point out that the supposition on which
the question is based is erroneous.

When I responded, you
> attacked my knowledge and me.

The former, but not the latter. And I attacked your knowledge simply
because you assured us that because of what you remember the nuns
teaching you or what you think you've understood from conversations with
someone are sufficient to carry the day. They aren't.

You even went so far as to start a new
> thread, this one, specifically attacking me.

I started this thread when you accused me of hypocrisy for answering you
.. Don't like it? Don't accuse me of hypocrisy. Now you have both a
new thread and a personal attack, just to make your prophecy self
fulfilling.

Besides, you could have changed the subject line at any time, as I've
done above.

>
>>>I questioned, whether Tolkien intentionally followed a similar path in
>>>regards to the Valar and their intercessions in Middle Earth. Rather
>>>than engage in a civil discussion, you got your panties in a bunch and
>>>started insulting people.
>>
>>
>>Really?
>
>
>
> yep.

Don't recall doing either one. So since when have you been checking out
my panties? You know I like the cute lacey ones.

>
>
>>My first response to you on 8/19:
>>Rather than a difference between "OT" and NT, its more a difference
>>between God as presented in the Bible, directly involved in human affairs,
>>and God as known in the Christian Ages, less directly involved and working
>>through the paraclete and the church.
>>
>>What was insulting about that? No bunched panties there.
>>
>>My second response to you is here:
>>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.tolkien/browse_thread/thread/77cca6a1449539d0/9df583db3b0a3f3c?show_docid=9df583db3b0a3f3c
>>
>>Again, where's the insult?
>>
>>Here's the third, responding after you assured us all that you knew the
>>facts cause some nuns told it to you 30 years ago in middle America:
>>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.tolkien/browse_thread/thread/77cca6a1449539d0/0bc176fb9066efcf
>>
>>No insult there either. Oh sure, you took offense at a comment, but you
>>taking offense and my offering insult are not the same thing.
>>
>>You have yet to answer the issue I keep putting before you: substantiate
>>the claim. Better had you spent your energies on doing some reading in
>>the Bible, Christian thought, and Tolkien to prove me wrong rather than
>>going off on a lengthy personal attack. Or you could apologize.
>>
>
>
> The insult began with "I can't help it if you were taught incorrectly or
> weren't paying particular attention that day."

Still not an insult....and that didn't come until the third message.
You were already quite testy before that.

> Minor, yes, but an insult none-the-less. Especially from someone with
> scholarly ambitions.

What does assessing your attentiveness in class, something I do
everyday, have to do with an insult?

> Now, you insult me by telling me to read the Bible or Christian theology or
> Tolkien. Again, if something doesn't match your views, you assume it to be
> worthless.

No, I didn't insult you, nor did I "tell" you anything if by "tell" you
mean "instruct, order, command". I did make a comparison: A is better
than B, this is better than that. If you wish to maintain that your
time was better spent venting your spleen with this screed and the one
you posted to alt.fan.tolkien than in looking into the suggested texts,
I suppose that is your affair, but I frankly don't think you can really
intellectually sustain such a position, and even less so morally.

> I have already addressed your calls for "substantiating" the claim.

Not really: you've offered an argument that I've pointed out multiple
times now is fallacious.

I have
> offered discussions with learned authorities,

Uh no....you offered at best memories of discussions with nuns from when
you were at best in high school, a Catholic priest who's training in
seminary amounts to a few classes (not denigrating, just observing) in
Bible and church thought, and later trot out your Bible as Lit course
which of course was much more informative than the yearly course I
teach--the learner is always more knowledgeable than the teacher, right?

you have ignored them because
> I will not give names on an open forum.
>
> In regards to apologies, the floor is open for you to begin. Show yourself
> to not be an arrogant prick by apologizing for insulting me and for having a
> closed mind.

Ok, I'm sorry you participated in this discussion and can't seem to
leave it alone and have now done much worse than I ever did.
>
>
>> Not surprising, considering your past. Remember this?
>>
>>>""Clearly, you want the world to view all things Tolkien as only Larry
>>>Swain would have them be." Arrogance. and a history of it.
>>
>>Indeed I do. It was a comment by Michael Martinez. Perhaps you should
>>ask some folk around these groups about MM before you take his comments
>>about me too seriously. MM and I have long buried the hatchet, and even
>>at the time had you read the thread you'll have noted that I had positive
>>things to say about MM. But you didn't bother to read....too eager to
>>find dirt on me.
>
>
> I'd hardly call it dirt, just an example of continuing behavior.

Hmmm, really? Ironic thing is,you've now established a history of
undesrireable continuing behavior.....
>
>
>
>>>I pity the poor saps who listen to you defend your dissertation...it will
>>>be a long night of "Larry Swain knows All."
>>
>>Well, at least on the topic of the dissertation, I do, which is kinda the
>>point of doing the exercise, to know more than anyone else in the world
>>regarding the topic on which you are writing some 500 pages. I'm sure the
>>internationally recognized group of scholars on my committee will no doubt
>>appreciate your comments, especially characterizing them as "saps."
>
>
> Agreed on the topic of the dissertion. My apologies to your committee
> members.
>
>
>
>> But, I pity any students you may
>>
>>>eventually have, especially those who want to learn by questioning.
>>
>>You could benefit from my classes.
>
>
> Highly doubtful.

Not really, you seem truly in need of some instruction.

I have taken Bible as lit already, and graduate level
> courses in theology on a not-for-credit basis.

Seems to me that a refresher is in order....


medievalism interests me
> only so much as how it's misconstrued as the "dark ages," and people were
> actally quite sophisticated and often enlightened.

now there's the best thing you've said yet.

If NYS gave more
> curricular freedom to its social studies teachers, I would spend more than 1
> day on the middle ages, but alas, thats all the time that can be alloted.

Dashed Regents Exams--amazing though that you have time to teach
Carnegie (whose advice you've certainly ignored here, regardless of what
you think of me), but not enough time to talk more about late antiquity
or the medieval....

> I've been teaching in higher
>
>>education for 12 years, and teaching at lower levels far longer. I've won
>>awards, and have students take other classes and change majors because of
>>classes they've taken with me. Where have you offered any "questions?"
>>Your one question was addressed, you said I was wrong because some nuns
>>told you something different 30 years ago, and then that your
>>father-in-law told you, and now some claim about a Bible as Lit
>>course...and I have pointed out that these sources need to be
>>investigated, but they can not be whereas the writings of Tolkien can be,
>>the Bible can be, Catholic writers can be.
>
>
> Agreed that in a discussion, the credentials of so-called experts need to be
> investigated. Would you like me to give you my father-in-laws phone number?
> Sorry, I am not willing to do that. Are you willing to put your phone
> number out in the open for him to call you? Do you want to see the syllabus
> for my Bible as Lit course?

Sure, why not? Course, no matter how good the course or the teacher, it
does little to prove the student absorbed the lessons well.

>
>
>>So let's start with a puzzle: how is how Abraham came to have faith
>>different than what happens in the NT? In fact, Abraham believes, does he
>>not, without seeing any miracles whatsoever, no flash, no show, no voice
>>out of the heavens (it doesn't say HOW God spoke to him, unlike say the
>>Sinai experience).
>
>
> The miracle of Isaac's birth at Sarah's great age?

Which according to the narrative is something Abraham was promised and
in which he believed and hoped for YEARS before it occurred. That, dear
boy, is called FAITH.

How about being led to
> Canaan?

"Led" by whom? Look again at the text--there's a significant gap
between "leave your family and your home" and "to the land that I will
show you"....there's nothing there about being led there...he had to
have faith to get up off his duff, pack his bags and head out with
nothing more than a promise in his head. (see Hebrews 11:

You must admit you are engaged in sophistry when you say no voice
> out of the heavens...Abraham STILL heard God's voice.

No sophistry. Jesuitical perhaps, but not sophistry. Was the voice
external or internal? Text doesn't say. Usually a theophanic
appearence is noted, there is none there.
>
>
> On the other hand, none of Jesus' disciples
>
>>believe WITHOUT SEEING HIS RESURRECTED BODY, they believe because they do
>>see, prompting Jesus to say "Blessed are those who believe and do not
>>see." So how is it that you can claim that the NT is more subtle and less
>>flashy?
>
>
> Appearing to a small band in an isolated part of an empire is, to me, not
> very flashy.

Wow, the central event of Christianity isn't flashy enough for you.
High standards indeed....wonder what your vaunted father in law the
Father would think of your disparagement of the central event in
Christianity.


Compare it to what god could have done to get his point across
> regarding Jesus: levelled a city? killed off the first born sons of all of
> Jesus' persecutors?

Ah, but all that was never done to "get a point across" in the OT
either. And would it have gotten a point across?


Opened up the heavens and let forth an angelic concert
> that all the world (or at least the Roman world) could see?

And you accuse me of arrogance....yet you're questioning how God chose
to do things. Fascinating irony there.


Is resurrection
> and appearance before people a miracle? Of course, and its "showy," too.
> But compared to how God could have done it, compared to actions in the OT,
> its mellow and subtle. It is part of the miracle that it worked,
> nonetheless.

Well, there's no convincing a fool.
>
> Reminds me of a joke my old pastor once said...Why was God so full of fire
> and brimstone in the OT, and preachign love and forgiveness in the NT?
> Well, everyone mellows after having a kid.
>
> Corny joke, but its what I've been saying...and asking if Tolkien paralleled
> it.


Except that the joke and the perspective on which it is based is a
misconception of what is going on. God is just as full of love and
forgiveness in the OT as he in the NT and performs or promises to
perform just as many, and in fact even more, devastating things in the
NT as he does in the OT. Tolkien was no fool and a very careful reader.
Furthermore, that teaching that you refer to is a modern one, invented
originally by Protestants and imported into Catholicism in the days
after Vatican II, and so has nothing to do with what the Bible actually
says, much less what Tolkien learned as a boy or came to believe later.
 >> Stay informed about: NY Teacher Doesn't Know What (S)he's talking about re: mat.. 

I am going to attempt to take a more positive track on this dispute. I have
ignored most, if not all of the "I say, you say" discussions
below...consider that an admission of defeat, if you choose. Instead, I
want to focus on a few points, that I find more...interesting, for lack of a
better word. I have snipped liberally, but I believe it is still easy to
follow.

You have several times pointed to Revelations as example of God being
"overtly" involved in the OT. Technically, of course, it is part of the OT
and must be considered examples of God getting involved...but:
1. Should it, in your opinion, really count as examples when it has not
occurred yet?
2. Is, in your opinion, Revelations actually symbolic of Rome, Nero, etc.
as has been posited by more than a few (less than scholarly) sources such as
the History Channel?
3. How does Revelations "fit" with God's promise after the flood not to
destroy mankind again?


> Much depends on what you mean by "catholicism" that can be altered. But
> the problem doesn't lie there so much as you jumped from this general
> truth to the specific suggestion that therefore Tolkien's ideas about
> the Bible were also *in some way* different than the church's. Sorry,
> fallacious.
>

I find it very hard to believe that Tolkien's beliefs were an exact match to
Rome's. You questioned what I mean by "catholicism." Partially, I meant
beliefs: for example, very few American Catholics today believe in
trans-substantiation, but it is part of Roman dogma. Partially, I meant
adherence to "demand:" for example, very few American Catholics today abide
by the prohibition on chemical or physical birth control. Now, since
Tolkien lived in a more conservative time and society, I do not doubt in the
slightest that his Catholicism, compared to modern day Catholicism in the US
and elsewhere, would match up much more closely to Rome's. But I still find
an exact match unlikely. You said that you have studies Tolkien's
catholicism...did you honestly find an "exact" match?



> In my considered, educated, informed opinion. Hey, I have an idea,
> there are several email lists to which I belong that are populated by
> and for scholars of Biblical Studies from all faith stripes. Let's take
> it there and see what they say. We can even ask the moderators to let
> us do a poll....what do you say? Crosstalk, Biblical Studies, B-Latin,
> Ancient Near East are all at Yahoo as is E-Matthew, B-Hebrew, B-Greek,
> Gospel of Mark, Corpus Paulum, are all at Ibiblio...take your pick or
> suggest one of your own.

I would be very interested to see what they say, but we would need to be
very specific on what we ask. For example, I think that Revelation should
be excluded from assessing the "overtness" of God's interventions...it tells
what God will do rather than has done. We would also need to come up with a
suitable defintion of "overt." Since we have agreed (i think) that the
actions taken in the NT were far more *successful* we would need to factor
that consideration in, or out, as well. You also mentionned the reversal of
Babel...I have the same reservations about that as with Revelations. Before
you argue that I am trying to stack the deck by eliminating prophesied
occurances that have not yet happened, you yourself point out that the
destruction of Sodom and Gomorah is "otherwise not recorded." Neither are
have-not-yet-occured events.

As far as what email lists, choose whichever,and how many, you want.


>> Free will in Eden...haven't talked to anyone about that before.
>
> Really? Interesting, its one of the central questions of Christian
> theology. One of the classic works is by Augustine, On the Free Choice
> of the Will. Of course, for the most part Augustine is addressing the
> question from a philosophical view, but he nonetheless does mention Adam
> and Eve.

> I will have
>> to reflect on it some more and re-read the text, but my gut reaction is
>> that free will was what the serpent was offering...
>
> That's an interesting reading and I think fraught with problems. For
> one thing, if Adam and Eve did not have the free will to either obey or
> disobey God's command, that means that God willed them to take the fruit
> and be disobedient, and therefore sin is God's fault. It would also
> mean that if faith in God is a choice, then faith as an exercise of free
> will (I believe so that I may understand) is therefore a result of
> original sin (since it requires free will, what the serpent offered.)

I will ignore the overly simplified protestant view that since god is
omniscient, free will is impossible.

Adam and Eve were given specific instructions to not eat of the two trees.
They did not have absolute freedom. They did, however, have free will to
choose, as proven by the fact of the choice they made. Had they choosen
*not* to disobey, the presence of free will would be much more difficult to
detect. After reflection, I retract my "gut reaction."

OTOH, God willing Adam and Eve to disobey would not be without a
counterpart, as God several times "hardened the heart" of Pharoah, in effect
forcing him to disobey and be punished. An omniscient God would certainly
know that his children would disobey as well. I know that if I take my 5
year old to a restaurant and tell him not to play with the knife, he's going
to reach for it.

> What does assessing your attentiveness in class, something I do
> everyday, have to do with an insult?

In my observations, when a person truly wishes to insult another, he/she
couches it in terms of his/her own strengths. An athlete will call someone
else a wimp, for example. A librarian, such as my wife, can throw no
greater insult than to call someone "poorly read." This is, of course,
refering to specific insults rather than generic ones which usually involve
vulgarities. Of all the teacher I have worked with, the greatest insult
they can call someone is "ignorant." For an academic such as yourself, to
say that someone was inattentive or got a bit of scholarly knowledge "wrong"
is, IMO, a strong attack. Since you obviously did not mean it as such, I
admit my mistake in that area.

> Uh no....you offered at best memories of discussions with nuns from when
> you were at best in high school, a Catholic priest who's training in
> seminary amounts to a few classes (not denigrating, just observing) in
> Bible and church thought, and later trot out your Bible as Lit course
> which of course was much more informative than the yearly course I
> teach--the learner is always more knowledgeable than the teacher, right?
>

I never intended to say that my Bible as Lit course was *more* informative
than the one your teach, nor more comprehensive, merely focused on different
areas (as is normal when two different people teach a course). I should
have been more specific in that regards.

As a fellow educator, it is my fervent wish that my students become more
knowledgeable than I. Just a side thought.


> Dashed Regents Exams--amazing though that you have time to teach Carnegie
> (whose advice you've certainly ignored here, regardless of what you think
> of me), but not enough time to talk more about late antiquity or the
> medieval....

Different courses. I spend two weeks with Carnegie and Covey for a
Political Science elective I teach that involves students going out on
political internships. But I do use excerpts of Carnegie to teach my
regents students at the start of the year. A week spent at the start saves
two or more weeks later on by diminishing disruptions. The regents is set
up in such a way as to greatly diminish the importance of any event prior to
the late 1700s. Its a shame, really, but the same can be said for any
historical period. Myself, I would spend months on WWI if given the
opportunity, since I beleive that every other event of the 20th century
traces is origins back to that point...of course, franco-german rivalries go
back much farther, like to the medieval spliting of the Frankish empire,
right? Nowadays, a major problem is trying to convince students of the
large part played by the cold war...they didnt live during it, so it's a
hard sell.

> Except that the joke and the perspective on which it is based is a
> misconception of what is going on. God is just as full of love and
> forgiveness in the OT as he in the NT and performs or promises to perform
> just as many, and in fact even more, devastating things in the NT as he
> does in the OT. Tolkien was no fool and a very careful reader.
> Furthermore, that teaching that you refer to is a modern one, invented
> originally by Protestants and imported into Catholicism in the days after
> Vatican II, and so has nothing to do with what the Bible actually says,
> much less what Tolkien learned as a boy or came to believe later.

Very interesting statements! Are you stating that Catholic viewpoints are
closer to what the Bible actually says than Protestants? My own experience
is that both groups seem to engage in cafeteria christianity, picking and
choosing what they want from the Bible and ignorign the rest. Paul Johnson
wrote (sorry, cant remember which book) that Catholicism did a particularly
good job at ignoring the Bible.

I hope that this response has diminished the dispute, and refocused it in
more positive areas.

NYT
 >> Stay informed about: NY Teacher Doesn't Know What (S)he's talking about re: mat.. 

NY Teacher wrote:
> I am going to attempt to take a more positive track on this dispute. I have
> ignored most, if not all of the "I say, you say" discussions
> below...consider that an admission of defeat, if you choose. Instead, I
> want to focus on a few points, that I find more...interesting, for lack of a
> better word. I have snipped liberally, but I believe it is still easy to
> follow.
>
> You have several times pointed to Revelations as example of God being
> "overtly" involved in the OT.

Well, first, its in the NEW TESTAMENT.

Technically, of course, it is part of the OT

NEW
> and must be considered examples of God getting involved...but:
> 1. Should it, in your opinion, really count as examples when it has not
> occurred yet?

YES! Why? It depicts the character of the Divine just as much as
anything in the OT does and displays that God intends to act the same as
he always has. Attempts to ascribe to God different characters in the
OT vs. the NT has always been considered heretical (see Marcion) or
different kinds of actions do so only by ignoring large portions of the NT.

If we want to get into what has and has not occurred, most scientists
and historians would say that events you point to such as creation, the
flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Jericho, the sun standing
still, the ten plagues, the crossing of the Red Sea are events described
in the literary narrative that didn't happen. So if we want to draw
distinctions between what has/will occur, we have to establish what has
occurred in the first place.

> 2. Is, in your opinion, Revelations actually symbolic of Rome, Nero, etc.
> as has been posited by more than a few (less than scholarly) sources such as
> the History Channel?

Immaterial to the discussion, really, much as whether Jesus' words in
the Little Apocalypse (Matt 24, Mk 13 etc) regarding the Temple refer to
70 AD as the church has assumed for a couple of millenia (until after
WWII) or not. What is important for our discussion is the depiction of
how God acts in the world and in human affairs. The Apocalypse has a
very clear response and answer.

> 3. How does Revelations "fit" with God's promise after the flood not to
> destroy mankind again?

Well, God never promised that. From Genesis 9:13-15: "I set My bow in
the cloud, and it shall be for a sign of a covenant between Me and the
earth. 14. "It shall come about, when I bring a cloud over the earth,
that the bow will be seen in the cloud, 15. and I will remember My
covenant, which is between Me and you and every living creature of all
flesh; and never again shall the *water become a flood to destroy all
flesh."* So Revelation fits just fine.

>
>
>>Much depends on what you mean by "catholicism" that can be altered. But
>>the problem doesn't lie there so much as you jumped from this general
>>truth to the specific suggestion that therefore Tolkien's ideas about
>>the Bible were also *in some way* different than the church's. Sorry,
>>fallacious.
>>
>
>
> I find it very hard to believe that Tolkien's beliefs were an exact match to
> Rome's.

Then find evidence. And even if they weren't as a whole, it doesn't
follow that they were different on the question of the shape and
interpretation of the Bible.

You questioned what I mean by "catholicism." Partially, I meant
> beliefs: for example, very few American Catholics today believe in
> trans-substantiation, but it is part of Roman dogma.

Fewer, certainly, but there are still many of the old guard around,
particularly those good Catholics who weren't educated in college. The
question is whether a man born in the 19th century, raised largely by a
priest who trained in the 1860s, and came of age before WWI would reject
such a belief. Reading Tolkien's letters and other writings that touch
on theology leads me to believe that Tolkien was quite conservative and
"popish" on such questions.


Partially, I meant
> adherence to "demand:" for example, very few American Catholics today abide
> by the prohibition on chemical or physical birth control. Now, since
> Tolkien lived in a more conservative time and society, I do not doubt in the
> slightest that his Catholicism, compared to modern day Catholicism in the US
> and elsewhere, would match up much more closely to Rome's. But I still find
> an exact match unlikely. You said that you have studies Tolkien's
> catholicism...did you honestly find an "exact" match?

I never claimed an exact match on every particular. But I know of
nowhere where he differed substantially from Rome. But again, what
matters to this discussion is not the "whole ball of wax" but one
particular. Finding that he disagreed with Rome on its stance in WWII
toward Germany is not evidence that he differed in Rome's reading of the
Bible or in the ecclesial magisterium.
>
>
>
>
>>In my considered, educated, informed opinion. Hey, I have an idea,
>>there are several email lists to which I belong that are populated by
>>and for scholars of Biblical Studies from all faith stripes. Let's take
>>it there and see what they say. We can even ask the moderators to let
>>us do a poll....what do you say? Crosstalk, Biblical Studies, B-Latin,
>>Ancient Near East are all at Yahoo as is E-Matthew, B-Hebrew, B-Greek,
>>Gospel of Mark, Corpus Paulum, are all at Ibiblio...take your pick or
>>suggest one of your own.
>
>
> I would be very interested to see what they say, but we would need to be
> very specific on what we ask. For example, I think that Revelation should
> be excluded from assessing the "overtness" of God's interventions...it tells
> what God will do rather than has done.

And? That seems to me to be a convenient division.

We would also need to come up with a
> suitable defintion of "overt." Since we have agreed (i think) that the
> actions taken in the NT were far more *successful* we would need to factor
> that consideration in, or out, as well.

Not really, we disagree entirely on what the aim and purpose of those
actions in the OT were, so we do not agree that the actions taken in the
NT were more successful or less successful.


You also mentionned the reversal of
> Babel...I have the same reservations about that as with Revelations. Before
> you argue that I am trying to stack the deck by eliminating prophesied
> occurances that have not yet happened, you yourself point out that the
> destruction of Sodom and Gomorah is "otherwise not recorded." Neither are
> have-not-yet-occured events.

A couple of things: I don't know why you'd have reservations about the
Pentecost being a reversal of Babel: its been the Christian
understanding of that event for a couple millenia now--except amongst
the newly minted American denominations and the pentecostals.

I think you miss my point re: Sodom and Gomorrah. You downplayed events
in the NT as taking place in an obscure corner of the empire (and I
could really debate at how obscure a corner of the empire it was!!), I
mentioned that Sodom and Gomorrah was pretty obscure then too, not being
mentioned by anyone else.

On the other hand, Sodom and Gomorroah, choirs of angels in the night
sky, stars seen in the east and prophesied events of God's intent all
tell us about the character of the Divine.
>
> As far as what email lists, choose whichever,and how many, you want.

Again, not quite the point. I do work in the field, my first degrees
were in Biblical theology, so I'm fairly confident what the answer will
be when we ask. I want to ensure that that answer will be accepted by
you when it comes back.

>
>
>>>Free will in Eden...haven't talked to anyone about that before.
>>
>>Really? Interesting, its one of the central questions of Christian
>>theology. One of the classic works is by Augustine, On the Free Choice
>>of the Will. Of course, for the most part Augustine is addressing the
>>question from a philosophical view, but he nonetheless does mention Adam
>>and Eve.
>
>
>> I will have
>>
>>>to reflect on it some more and re-read the text, but my gut reaction is
>>>that free will was what the serpent was offering...
>>
>>That's an interesting reading and I think fraught with problems. For
>>one thing, if Adam and Eve did not have the free will to either obey or
>>disobey God's command, that means that God willed them to take the fruit
>>and be disobedient, and therefore sin is God's fault. It would also
>>mean that if faith in God is a choice, then faith as an exercise of free
>>will (I believe so that I may understand) is therefore a result of
>>original sin (since it requires free will, what the serpent offered.)
>
>
> I will ignore the overly simplified protestant view that since god is
> omniscient, free will is impossible.

Its not an "overly simplified protestant view." Nor does it have to
with omnisicence. The Catholic, and eventually Lutheran position,
reconciled Omnisicence and Foreknowledge with Free Will. The Calvinist
position, at least in pure Calvinism, had great difficulty since it was
not just foreknowledge that was ascribed to God, but that God had
foreknowledge because he had already determined down to the last minute
detail of when a butterfly in Pennsylvania would burst out of its cocoon
in 2009 and 5 minutes get caught in a child's net to become part of a
school project. If so, then how can any sinner be responsible for his
sin (and certainly Adam and Eve) if God has already determined their
actions--there's no free will, and without free will how can there be
culpability? It was a real theological problem in Calvin's Geneva and
thereafter in various forms of Calvinistic thought. Its why you'll find
reletively few 5 point Calvinists running amok in the 21st century.

What does that have to do with you? Well, you posited that Adam and Eve
did not have free will and that free will was what the serpent
offered....if Adam and Eve had no free will to choose to obey or
disobey, how can they be culpable for their sins, much less the rest of
humanity? It goes to the heart of your statement.

> Adam and Eve were given specific instructions to not eat of the two trees.
> They did not have absolute freedom.

But the question was whether they had absolute freedom, but free will.

They did, however, have free will to
> choose, as proven by the fact of the choice they made.

Which is not what you said in the previous message. You said you were
not sure about Adam and Eve having free will and that as best you could
recall that the serpent offered free will. Do you now retract that
statement?

Had they choosen
> *not* to disobey, the presence of free will would be much more difficult to
> detect. After reflection, I retract my "gut reaction."

Ignore my last question....
>
> OTOH, God willing Adam and Eve to disobey would not be without a
> counterpart, as God several times "hardened the heart" of Pharoah, in effect
> forcing him to disobey and be punished.

A locus classicus of the predestination debate.....I in fact wrote a
paper on it once upon a time in the long ago in the before time.

An omniscient God would certainly
> know that his children would disobey as well. I know that if I take my 5
> year old to a restaurant and tell him not to play with the knife, he's going
> to reach for it.
>
<snip>
>
>
> Very interesting statements! Are you stating that Catholic viewpoints are
> closer to what the Bible actually says than Protestants?

Depends on the Protestants of whom we are speaking and the issue. The
Copts, Catholics, and Orthodox have been reading the text a couple
millenia longer and they along with the Anglicans and Lutherans and a
few others tend to at least respect (and in the case of the big 3,
accept) that long tradition as authoritative.

My own experience
> is that both groups seem to engage in cafeteria christianity, picking and
> choosing what they want from the Bible and ignorign the rest. Paul Johnson
> wrote (sorry, cant remember which book) that Catholicism did a particularly
> good job at ignoring the Bible.

Sure, because the Bible is only one part, the central part perhaps, but
one part of the tradition. Early on the Christian movement saw the
inspiration of the Holy Spirit not in a text, however authoritative, but
in the people who wrote the text AND in the people who read the text: i.
e. the inspired was the Church, not the text. Of course, the problem
that quickly arose is when you have group A claiming one thing and group
B claiming another and both understanding themselves as inspired and so
authoritative, and both interpreting Scripture, how do you determine who
is "right?" And so the magisterium is born, interpreting Scripture in
light of authoritative tradition to keep and preserve orthodoxy.
Anyway, I babble.....point being that all Christian groups and Jewish
groups for that matter (and Muslim groups) are defined as groups and
subsets because of an emphasis on one part of the Bible and deemphasis
on another....few Christians I know of offer wave offerings of wheat
these days (though there is the World Wide Church of God....but that's
another story), and have their share of ignoring the Bible.

Tolkien was a pretty good reader of the Bible, in several languages, as
you probably know.
>
> I hope that this response has diminished the dispute, and refocused it in
> more positive areas.

It has and does. I really did not mean to give offense. Taken as a
whole however, I think that to characterize God in the OT differently
than God in the NT is a dangerous proposition and one that ignores large
portions of the text and its depiction of God.
 >> Stay informed about: NY Teacher Doesn't Know What (S)he's talking about re: mat.. 

NY Teacher wrote:

> I find it very hard to believe that Tolkien's beliefs were an exact match to
> Rome's.

I doubt that everyone in Vatican City has identical opinions. So what
do you mean by "Rome"? The personal theology and beliefs of the Pope?
The official teaching of the Church?

And what do you mean by "beliefs"? Official defined doctrines or mere
traditions or opinions? As a serious and informed Catholic, Tolkien
would have accepted the doctrines of the Church, but he might not have
agreed with the Pope on, say, prudential political judgments.

> You questioned what I mean by "catholicism." Partially, I meant
> beliefs: for example, very few American Catholics today believe in
> trans-substantiation, but it is part of Roman dogma.

Do you have a reference for that assertion? And are you referring to
transubstantiation or the Real Presence? I'm not sure that most
Catholics even know what transubstantiation is. (BTW, the main dogma is
the Real Presence; transubstantiation is more a philosophical
explanation of it.)

<snip>


-- FotW

Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-earth.
 >> Stay informed about: NY Teacher Doesn't Know What (S)he's talking about re: mat.. 

"Larry Swain" wrote in message

> NY Teacher wrote:
>> I am going to attempt to take a more positive track on this dispute. I
>> have ignored most, if not all of the "I say, you say" discussions
>> below...consider that an admission of defeat, if you choose. Instead, I
>> want to focus on a few points, that I find more...interesting, for lack
>> of a better word. I have snipped liberally, but I believe it is still
>> easy to follow.
>>
>> You have several times pointed to Revelations as example of God being
>> "overtly" involved in the OT.
>
> Well, first, its in the NEW TESTAMENT.

Editing error on my part.

>
> Technically, of course, it is part of the OT
>
> NEW
>> and must be considered examples of God getting involved...but:
>> 1. Should it, in your opinion, really count as examples when it has not
>> occurred yet?
>
> YES! Why? It depicts the character of the Divine just as much as
> anything in the OT does and displays that God intends to act the same as
> he always has. Attempts to ascribe to God different characters in the OT
> vs. the NT has always been considered heretical (see Marcion) or different
> kinds of actions do so only by ignoring large portions of the NT.
>
> If we want to get into what has and has not occurred, most scientists and
> historians would say that events you point to such as creation, the flood,
> the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Jericho, the sun standing still,
> the ten plagues, the crossing of the Red Sea are events described in the
> literary narrative that didn't happen. So if we want to draw distinctions
> between what has/will occur, we have to establish what has occurred in the
> first place.

For the sake of argument, I would accept as a given that all the events
described in the Bible, OT and NT, actually occured. (This is not to say,
of course, that I actually believe they happened, but I will accept it as a
given.) Revelation, however, occurs at some future point in the timeline,
and the historian in me can not include a "has not occured" in a discussion.
I find your reasoning to be convincing, however.


>
>> 2. Is, in your opinion, Revelations actually symbolic of Rome, Nero,
>> etc. as has been posited by more than a few (less than scholarly) sources
>> such as the History Channel?
>
> Immaterial to the discussion, really, much as whether Jesus' words in the
> Little Apocalypse (Matt 24, Mk 13 etc) regarding the Temple refer to 70 AD
> as the church has assumed for a couple of millenia (until after WWII) or
> not. What is important for our discussion is the depiction of how God
> acts in the world and in human affairs. The Apocalypse has a very clear
> response and answer.

I was actually interested in your opinion. The History Channel does a nice
job propagandizing its points of view, but I was after a more scholarly
opinion.


>
>> 3. How does Revelations "fit" with God's promise after the flood not to
>> destroy mankind again?
>
> Well, God never promised that. From Genesis 9:13-15: "I set My bow in the
> cloud, and it shall be for a sign of a covenant between Me and the earth.
> 14. "It shall come about, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the
> bow will be seen in the cloud, 15. and I will remember My covenant, which
> is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and never
> again shall the *water become a flood to destroy all flesh."* So
> Revelation fits just fine.

Indeed, an excellent distinction.


>
>>
>>
>>>Much depends on what you mean by "catholicism" that can be altered. But
>>>the problem doesn't lie there so much as you jumped from this general
>>>truth to the specific suggestion that therefore Tolkien's ideas about
>>>the Bible were also *in some way* different than the church's. Sorry,
>>>fallacious.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I find it very hard to believe that Tolkien's beliefs were an exact match
>> to Rome's.
>
> Then find evidence. And even if they weren't as a whole, it doesn't
> follow that they were different on the question of the shape and
> interpretation of the Bible.
>
> You questioned what I mean by "catholicism." Partially, I meant
>> beliefs: for example, very few American Catholics today believe in
>> trans-substantiation, but it is part of Roman dogma.
>
> Fewer, certainly, but there are still many of the old guard around,
> particularly those good Catholics who weren't educated in college. The
> question is whether a man born in the 19th century, raised largely by a
> priest who trained in the 1860s, and came of age before WWI would reject
> such a belief. Reading Tolkien's letters and other writings that touch on
> theology leads me to believe that Tolkien was quite conservative and
> "popish" on such questions.
>
>
> Partially, I meant
>> adherence to "demand:" for example, very few American Catholics today
>> abide by the prohibition on chemical or physical birth control. Now,
>> since Tolkien lived in a more conservative time and society, I do not
>> doubt in the slightest that his Catholicism, compared to modern day
>> Catholicism in the US and elsewhere, would match up much more closely to
>> Rome's. But I still find an exact match unlikely. You said that you
>> have studies Tolkien's catholicism...did you honestly find an "exact"
>> match?
>
> I never claimed an exact match on every particular. But I know of nowhere
> where he differed substantially from Rome. But again, what matters to
> this discussion is not the "whole ball of wax" but one particular.
> Finding that he disagreed with Rome on its stance in WWII toward Germany
> is not evidence that he differed in Rome's reading of the Bible or in the
> ecclesial magisterium.

Agreed.


>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>In my considered, educated, informed opinion. Hey, I have an idea,
>>>there are several email lists to which I belong that are populated by
>>>and for scholars of Biblical Studies from all faith stripes. Let's take
>>>it there and see what they say. We can even ask the moderators to let
>>>us do a poll....what do you say? Crosstalk, Biblical Studies, B-Latin,
>>>Ancient Near East are all at Yahoo as is E-Matthew, B-Hebrew, B-Greek,
>>>Gospel of Mark, Corpus Paulum, are all at Ibiblio...take your pick or
>>>suggest one of your own.
>>
>>
>> I would be very interested to see what they say, but we would need to be
>> very specific on what we ask. For example, I think that Revelation
>> should be excluded from assessing the "overtness" of God's
>> interventions...it tells what God will do rather than has done.
>
> And? That seems to me to be a convenient division.

I stated my objection to it - a purely temporal one. Your argument
regarding what it shows of the nature of god is too compelling, however, so
I remove my objection.

>
> We would also need to come up with a
>> suitable defintion of "overt." Since we have agreed (i think) that the
>> actions taken in the NT were far more *successful* we would need to
>> factor that consideration in, or out, as well.
>
> Not really, we disagree entirely on what the aim and purpose of those
> actions in the OT were, so we do not agree that the actions taken in the
> NT were more successful or less successful.

I ask for enlightenment then...what were the aims and purposes of those
actions in the OT?


>
>
> You also mentionned the reversal of
>> Babel...I have the same reservations about that as with Revelations.
>> Before you argue that I am trying to stack the deck by eliminating
>> prophesied occurances that have not yet happened, you yourself point out
>> that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorah is "otherwise not recorded."
>> Neither are have-not-yet-occured events.
>
> A couple of things: I don't know why you'd have reservations about the
> Pentecost being a reversal of Babel: its been the Christian understanding
> of that event for a couple millenia now--except amongst the newly minted
> American denominations and the pentecostals.

My objection is temporal, again, as it is prophecied but has not yet
happened ("And it shall come to pass afterward..."). But again, since it

> I think you miss my point re: Sodom and Gomorrah. You downplayed events
> in the NT as taking place in an obscure corner of the empire (and I could
> really debate at how obscure a corner of the empire it was!!), I mentioned
> that Sodom and Gomorrah was pretty obscure then too, not being mentioned
> by anyone else.

No, I caught that.

>
> On the other hand, Sodom and Gomorroah, choirs of angels in the night sky,
> stars seen in the east and prophesied events of God's intent all tell us
> about the character of the Divine.
>>
>> As far as what email lists, choose whichever,and how many, you want.
>
> Again, not quite the point. I do work in the field, my first degrees were
> in Biblical theology, so I'm fairly confident what the answer will be when
> we ask. I want to ensure that that answer will be accepted by you when it
> comes back.

My statement to choose whichever you want was meant as an acknowledgement
that i will accept any of them as authoritative.

>
>>
>>
>>>>Free will in Eden...haven't talked to anyone about that before.
>>>
>>>Really? Interesting, its one of the central questions of Christian
>>>theology. One of the classic works is by Augustine, On the Free Choice
>>>of the Will. Of course, for the most part Augustine is addressing the
>>>question from a philosophical view, but he nonetheless does mention Adam
>>>and Eve.
>>
>>
>>> I will have
>>>
>>>>to reflect on it some more and re-read the text, but my gut reaction is
>>>>that free will was what the serpent was offering...
>>>
>>>That's an interesting reading and I think fraught with problems. For
>>>one thing, if Adam and Eve did not have the free will to either obey or
>>>disobey God's command, that means that God willed them to take the fruit
>>>and be disobedient, and therefore sin is God's fault. It would also
>>>mean that if faith in God is a choice, then faith as an exercise of free
>>>will (I believe so that I may understand) is therefore a result of
>>>original sin (since it requires free will, what the serpent offered.)
>>
>>
>> I will ignore the overly simplified protestant view that since god is
>> omniscient, free will is impossible.
>
> Its not an "overly simplified protestant view."

I meant that god's omnisicience impacting free will was an over-simplified
explanation of the protestant view.

As an aside, if you ever want to experience frustration, try to explain the
differences among Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans, and other protestants
(such as Zwingli) compared to Catholicism both before and after the Council
of Trent, to a bunch of 9th graders. Its one of those times you wish for a
good instructional video, but none exist.

Nor does it have to
> with omnisicence. The Catholic, and eventually Lutheran position,
> reconciled Omnisicence and Foreknowledge with Free Will. The Calvinist
> position, at least in pure Calvinism, had great difficulty since it was
> not just foreknowledge that was ascribed to God, but that God had
> foreknowledge because he had already determined down to the last minute
> detail of when a butterfly in Pennsylvania would burst out of its cocoon
> in 2009 and 5 minutes get caught in a child's net to become part of a
> school project. If so, then how can any sinner be responsible for his sin
> (and certainly Adam and Eve) if God has already determined their
> actions--there's no free will, and without free will how can there be
> culpability? It was a real theological problem in Calvin's Geneva and
> thereafter in various forms of Calvinistic thought. Its why you'll find
> reletively few 5 point Calvinists running amok in the 21st century.
>
> What does that have to do with you? Well, you posited that Adam and Eve
> did not have free will and that free will was what the serpent
> offered....if Adam and Eve had no free will to choose to obey or disobey,
> how can they be culpable for their sins, much less the rest of humanity?
> It goes to the heart of your statement.
>
>> Adam and Eve were given specific instructions to not eat of the two
>> trees. They did not have absolute freedom.
>
> But the question was whether they had absolute freedom, but free will.
>
> They did, however, have free will to
>> choose, as proven by the fact of the choice they made.
>
> Which is not what you said in the previous message. You said you were not
> sure about Adam and Eve having free will and that as best you could recall
> that the serpent offered free will. Do you now retract that statement?
>
> Had they choosen
>> *not* to disobey, the presence of free will would be much more difficult
>> to detect. After reflection, I retract my "gut reaction."
>
> Ignore my last question....

Done.

>>
>> OTOH, God willing Adam and Eve to disobey would not be without a
>> counterpart, as God several times "hardened the heart" of Pharoah, in
>> effect forcing him to disobey and be punished.
>
> A locus classicus of the predestination debate.....I in fact wrote a paper
> on it once upon a time in the long ago in the before time.
>
> An omniscient God would certainly
>> know that his children would disobey as well. I know that if I take my 5
>> year old to a restaurant and tell him not to play with the knife, he's
>> going to reach for it.
>>
> <snip>
>>
>>
>> Very interesting statements! Are you stating that Catholic viewpoints
>> are closer to what the Bible actually says than Protestants?
>
> Depends on the Protestants of whom we are speaking and the issue. The
> Copts, Catholics, and Orthodox have been reading the text a couple
> millenia longer and they along with the Anglicans and Lutherans and a few
> others tend to at least respect (and in the case of the big 3, accept)
> that long tradition as authoritative.
>
> My own experience
>> is that both groups seem to engage in cafeteria christianity, picking and
>> choosing what they want from the Bible and ignorign the rest. Paul
>> Johnson wrote (sorry, cant remember which book) that Catholicism did a
>> particularly good job at ignoring the Bible.
>
> Sure, because the Bible is only one part, the central part perhaps, but
> one part of the tradition. Early on the Christian movement saw the
> inspiration of the Holy Spirit not in a text, however authoritative, but
> in the people who wrote the text AND in the people who read the text: i.
> e. the inspired was the Church, not the text. Of course, the problem that
> quickly arose is when you have group A claiming one thing and group B
> claiming another and both understanding themselves as inspired and so
> authoritative, and both interpreting Scripture, how do you determine who
> is "right?" And so the magisterium is born, interpreting Scripture in
> light of authoritative tradition to keep and preserve orthodoxy. Anyway, I
> babble.....point being that all Christian groups and Jewish groups for
> that matter (and Muslim groups) are defined as groups and subsets because
> of an emphasis on one part of the Bible and deemphasis on another....few
> Christians I know of offer wave offerings of wheat these days (though
> there is the World Wide Church of God....but that's another story), and
> have their share of ignoring the Bible.
>
> Tolkien was a pretty good reader of the Bible, in several languages, as
> you probably know.
>>
>> I hope that this response has diminished the dispute, and refocused it in
>> more positive areas.
>
> It has and does. I really did not mean to give offense. Taken as a whole
> however, I think that to characterize God in the OT differently than God
> in the NT is a dangerous proposition and one that ignores large portions
> of the text and its depiction of God.

Would you say that there is no change in his character, message, or actions?
Would you say the same of the Valar?
 >> Stay informed about: NY Teacher Doesn't Know What (S)he's talking about re: mat.. 

"NY Teacher" wrote in message


> You have several times pointed to Revelations as example of God being
> "overtly" involved in the OT.

For openers.... anyone truely learned in Catholic lore ; knows that
pleuralizing [The Book of "Revelation"] (no S) results in a nun smacking
thier knuckles with a 12" ruler.

Posers!!

-W
 >> Stay informed about: NY Teacher Doesn't Know What (S)he's talking about re: mat.. 

In message
"NY Teacher" spoke these staves:
>
> "Larry Swain" wrote in message
>
>>
>> NY Teacher wrote:
>>>

<massive snippage>

> As an aside, if you ever want to experience frustration, try to
> explain the differences among Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans,
> and other protestants (such as Zwingli) compared to Catholicism
> both before and after the Council of Trent, to a bunch of 9th
> graders. Its one of those times you wish for a good instructional
> video, but none exist.

Ouch! Why would anyone try to do that Well, I suppose that 9th
graders anywhere will have the same habit of asking questions they
don't really have the desire -- and much less the patience -- to know
the answers to. Danish schools don't really make a big deal about the
differences, and when I went to school you could easily get the
impression that the only difference in Christianity was on whether
one really ought to sell indulgence for money. I've come a bit
further than that, but am still a novice.

>> Nor does it have to with omnisicence. The Catholic, and
>> eventually Lutheran position, reconciled Omnisicence and
>> Foreknowledge with Free Will.

Do you know if there is anything earlier than Boëthius that addresses
this question?

Boëthius is mentioned by several critics (Flieger, Dubs and others)
as one of Tolkien's likely influences, and I'd be very intested to
hear if you have an opinion on whether there are some other
influences. In particular, of course, if there are some that had a
greater impact on Tolkien's world-order (the set-up of providence,
grace, fate, chance and free-will in Middle-earth) than Boëthius.

>> The Calvinist position, at least in pure Calvinism, had great
>> difficulty since it was not just foreknowledge that was ascribed
>> to God, but that God had foreknowledge because he had already
>> determined down to the last minute detail

How does this relate to the later Augustine, when he comes to the
conclusion that any free will is only the result of unmerited grace.
Since grace comes from God, one could easily argue that this grace
was part of the predestination, and if the omniscient God gives you
sufficient grace to freely choose good, how free, then, is that
choice? At least I think an argument could be constructed along those
lines building on the late Augustine, but taking it further than he
did.

Incidentally; I've been searching for an on-line collection of
Augustine's works in English that include 'De Gratia et Libero
Arbitrio' and his allegorical reading of Genesis, but I haven't been
able to find any. You don't happen to know of something of that sort?
Otherwise you might be able to point to a good translation that I
could get from the library?

<snip>

>> What does that have to do with you? Well, you posited that Adam
>> and Eve did not have free will and that free will was what the
>> serpent offered....if Adam and Eve had no free will to choose to
>> obey or disobey, how can they be culpable for their sins, much
>> less the rest of humanity? It goes to the heart of your
>> statement.

If Fëanor is bound by the Music to reject Yavanna's plea, how can he
be culpable? I think that Tolkien manages an answer to that question
by letting free will be more important in its inner working than in
its effect on external events.

>>> OTOH, God willing Adam and Eve to disobey would not be without a
>>> counterpart, as God several times "hardened the heart" of
>>> Pharoah, in effect forcing him to disobey and be punished.
>>
>> A locus classicus of the predestination debate.....I in fact
>> wrote a paper on it once upon a time in the long ago in the
>> before time.

I'd be interested in learning a bit more. Is this some kind of anti-
grace (grace, as far as I am aware, is not seen as affecting the
freedom of the choice, even if it might affect the choice itself)? I
suppose that something written 'once upon a time in the long ago'
etc. will not be available on the internet, but something else might
(generally searching for something like this is much easier if you
know the right phrases to search for).

<snip>

>> Taken as a whole however, I think that to characterize God in the
>> OT differently than God in the NT is a dangerous proposition and
>> one that ignores large portions of the text and its depiction of
>> God.
>
> Would you say that there is no change in his character, message,
> or actions? Would you say the same of the Valar?

Grasping desperately for the familiar phrase . . .

I don't think the comparison to the Valar is appropriate in this
context. God, in the accounts I've been reading, is eternal and
unchangeable. Indeed Boëthius places him outside time, claiming that
all of time, to God, is as one eternal moment (to the physicist it is
compelling to say that the claim is that to God ordinary time is
exactly as another spatial dimension would be to us, and that insofar
as God's actions are sequential they are not sequentialized in
ordinary (serial) time, but in some other time (call it Divine
Time)).

The Valar, on the other hand, were inside Time and were affected by
Time. Even the Valar faded, so to speak. There's something in 'Myths
Transformed' that explicitly says that the Valar became less
involved:

The Valar 'fade' and become more impotent, precisely in
proportion as the shape and constitution of things becomes
more defined and settled. The longer the Past, the more
nearly defined the Future, and the less room for important
change (untrammelled action, on a physical plane, that is
not destructive in purpose).
[MR (HoMe10), 5 'Myths Transformed' Text VII (iii)]

There is other stuff in that text that gives the same general
impression: that Tolkien thought that the Valar became less directly
involved with the history of Arda, and that their involvement, when
it occurred, became less powerful, less effective.

Whether this can, in any sensible way, be transferred to Tolkien's
views on God and the Bible is, I think, very doubtful -- Eru's
involvement is (with the exception of Ar-Pharazôn's invasion of
Valinor) at once more subtle throughout, but also more constant and
with no lessening of its effect.

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.

Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the
world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!
- Aragorn, /The Lord of the Rings/ (J.R.R. Tolkien)
 >> Stay informed about: NY Teacher Doesn't Know What (S)he's talking about re: mat.. 

NY Teacher wrote:
> "Larry Swain" wrote in message
>
>

>
>
> For the sake of argument, I would accept as a given that all the events
> described in the Bible, OT and NT, actually occured. (This is not to say,
> of course, that I actually believe they happened, but I will accept it as a
> given.) Revelation, however, occurs at some future point in the timeline,
> and the historian in me can not include a "has not occured" in a discussion.
> I find your reasoning to be convincing, however.
>

Ok, so we agree there...

>
>>>2. Is, in your opinion, Revelations actually symbolic of Rome, Nero,
>>>etc. as has been posited by more than a few (less than scholarly) sources
>>>such as the History Channel?
>>
>>Immaterial to the discussion, really, much as whether Jesus' words in the
>>Little Apocalypse (Matt 24, Mk 13 etc) regarding the Temple refer to 70 AD
>>as the church has assumed for a couple of millenia (until after WWII) or
>>not. What is important for our discussion is the depiction of how God
>>acts in the world and in human affairs. The Apocalypse has a very clear
>>response and answer.
>
>
> I was actually interested in your opinion. The History Channel does a nice
> job propagandizing its points of view, but I was after a more scholarly
> opinion.
>

Well, its an interpretation that rests on a couple of things. First,
that apocalyptic literature is less about foretelling future events, but
is rather addressed to the author's present and wants to say something
about God's control over the situation in spite of appearances, and that
God will eventually do something about it. As such then, the events
describe in the Apocalypse are aimed at a first century audience rather
than a 21st. Further, the identification of the whore of Babylon (who
sits on 7 hills) with Rome seems pretty clear to indicate Rome, though
that doesn't mean that every oracle does in the book. But Given those,
what are we to make of the apparent gematria of 666?

I've never bought the identification as Nero. Why would a community in
Ephesus and eastern Asia Minor be that pissed at Nero who while a bit
crazy didn't do anything to those Christian communities? Or in
Palestine for that matter? And Nero certainly isn't the only one to fit
666, the possibilities are legion as we've found out with 666 identified
with Nixon, Kissinger, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton to name a few I've
read. So while there's most likely some political commentary that's
anti-Roman in the work, I don't buy into the specific identifications
that most do.

I think a more likely explanation is the symbolic/numerological that
focuses on the meaning of the numbers and the sequence suggesting human
sinfulness rather than the specific identification of a particular person.


<snip points of agreement>
>
>

>> We would also need to come up with a
>>
>>>suitable defintion of "overt." Since we have agreed (i think) that the
>>>actions taken in the NT were far more *successful* we would need to
>>>factor that consideration in, or out, as well.
>>
>>Not really, we disagree entirely on what the aim and purpose of those
>>actions in the OT were, so we do not agree that the actions taken in the
>>NT were more successful or less successful.
>
>
> I ask for enlightenment then...what were the aims and purposes of those
> actions in the OT?

First, I think we have to take them individually rather than together.
We're told in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah and the Flood that it was
God's response to human sinfulness, if we interpret the preambles
correctly. So bad had it gotten that God was compelled to react. That
these events may stand as exempla to future generations is an
interpretation and justification beyond the text itself which only
relates the divine response.

The case of pharoah is different: but do note that pharoah hardened his
heart against Moses and letting Israel go BEFORE God did....so one
interpretation would be to see God later hardening Pharoah's heart with
the end result in the story as a divine retribution for Pharoah's own
lack of response in the first place (note that at first the request was
only to go out into the wilderness to worship GOd, not to leave Egypt or
their slavery altogether....so it ended up being much costlier.)
<snip>
>
>>On the other hand, Sodom and Gomorroah, choirs of angels in the night sky,
>>stars seen in the east and prophesied events of God's intent all tell us
>>about the character of the Divine.
>>
>>>As far as what email lists, choose whichever,and how many, you want.
>>
>>Again, not quite the point. I do work in the field, my first degrees were
>>in Biblical theology, so I'm fairly confident what the answer will be when
>>we ask. I want to ensure that that answer will be accepted by you when it
>>comes back.
>
>
> My statement to choose whichever you want was meant as an acknowledgement
> that i will accept any of them as authoritative.

Ok
>>>

>
> As an aside, if you ever want to experience frustration, try to explain the
> differences among Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans, and other protestants
> (such as Zwingli) compared to Catholicism both before and after the Council
> of Trent, to a bunch of 9th graders. Its one of those times you wish for a
> good instructional video, but none exist.

My sincere condolences. Most adults don't get it.




> Would you say that there is no change in his character, message, or actions?
> Would you say the same of the Valar?
>
>

Confessionally, no. God is unchangeable, immutable, the same yesterday,
today, and forever.

Extra-confessionally, of course. LIke most mythologies, that of the
Abrahamic faiths sees a greater involvement of the divine back in the
olden days, a golden age and a silver age in which humanity and the gods
were much closer in contact in contrast to the eternal present in which
the divine seems more distant and less involved. The Christian Bible is
cyclical in that it tells a story that parallels itself: Creation as a
whole, to refocus on humanity, to refocus on a particular part of
humanity, to refocus on an event affecting all of humanity, to New
Creation, and so sees that "golden age" as coming around again fairly
soon, whenever soon may be.

In terms of the Valar, I'm not sure how comparable they are. The Valar
are IN the world; God, like Eru, is outside the world.

Let's look at the Valar, and I'm sure others will correct me if I get
something wrong or overlook something. But they sing the music,
Iluvatar makes it exist. They enter the world and shape it and refine
the music. But after that, the majority stay at home, waiting. When
the elves awaken and the Valar are aware of them, they do not all go to
Middle Earth and hang out with the elves. No, they invite the elves to
come to the Blessed Realm with them--another sign of withdrawal. Once
those who want to come to the Blessed Realm have, again the majority of
the Valar stay at home and don't go romping about Middle Earth.
Likewise when the elves leave following Feanor etc, the Valar all but
wash their hands of Middle Earth and leave the elves to their own
devices in their war on Morgoth. It isn't until Elendil arrives as
ambassador of Elves and Men with the aid of the Silmaril that the Valar
decide something must be done, and so the War of Wrath is really a
singular, unique event.

We see very little involvement of the Valar in Middle Earth in the
Second Age. Elves visit Numenor often in the early days, but as the
millenia pass, as you know, that occurs less and less until finally not
at all. While ordered to appear before the Valar in the Blessed Realm,
Sauron doesn't and the Valar do not come and check up on him or require
him to present himself.

When we come to the Third Age, we actually see a lot more involvement.
The Istari. The Eagles. The happy chance of a wind change for Aragorn
and Minas Tirith. The dream sent to Faramir and Boromir. The wind that
blew Sauron away, and Saruman. So it isn't as direct as the War of
Wrath, but it certainly is the highest level of direct involvement over
a longer period of time since the fashioning of the world.
 >> Stay informed about: NY Teacher Doesn't Know What (S)he's talking about re: mat.. 

Troels Forchhammer wrote:
> In message
> Larry Swain spoke these staves:
>
>>Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>>
>
>
> I've had to cut this up a bit lest the posts get too long (also I
> wanted to post what I had written after being away for the weekend
> without internet access)
>

Probably a very wise decision.
>
> <snip>
>
> The Catholic and Lutheran positions reconciling omniscience and
> foreknowledge with free will:
>
>
>>>Do you know if there is anything earlier than Boëthius that
>>>addresses this question?
>>
>>The question of free will? Augustine is the first to give it a
>>real treatment, and does so twice. I don't know anyone who really
>>does more than assume free will before that point.
>
>
> I was thinking of the reconciliation of Foreknowledge with Free Will
> specifically, but I was also forgetting that Augustine was earlier
> than Boëthius. I don't think that Boëthius is particularly original
> in his view of free will, which he inherits directly from the Greek
> philosophers.

Yes, I think so too.

>
>>>Boëthius is mentioned by several critics (Flieger, Dubs and
>>>others) as one of Tolkien's likely influences,
>>
>>And I think most of them are taking this from Shippey's Road to
>>Middle Earth, one of the few sections that didn't entirely
>>convince me.
>
>
> I don't think it comes from Shippey, really. Both Dubs and Flieger
> are dealing not with the question of Evil[*], but rather with the
> set-up and interrelations of providence, fate and chance. Kathleen
> Dubs has a paper called 'Boethian Philosophy in The Lord of the
> Rings' in Jane Chance's /Tolkien and the Invention of Myth: A Reader/
> in which she goes to some detail trying to demonstrate both that
> Tolkien was likely to have known Boëthius and that his set-up of
> providence, fate and chance has a striking similarity with Boëthius'.
> Flieger is somewhat more indirect, though she does mention Boëthius a
> couple of times.

I say "from Shippey" because Shippey is the first I know of who mentions
Boethius in the same breath as Tolkien. No, Dubs isn't dealing with
"Evil" per se, but in Tolkien and in this discussion, I don't think we
can as neatly separate evil, providence, chance, et al in Tolkien as we
do in philosophical/theological discussions.

That Tolkien knew Boethius is a given, I think. I only say that because
Boethius was still a work commonly read when Tolkien was in school, and
certainly because of his professional field, Boethius is must reading.

On the other hand, I don't buy Dubs' argument. I can really do no more
than offer an extended outline of remarks, but may actually work this up
if someone hasn't already.

First, the best the article can really come up with is that as Tolkien
writes about "fate" "chance" and "luck" (he never explicitly mentions
free will, but that is suggested in certain phrases) that it appears to
be consistent with the Boethian view of the matter. Ok, but
"consistent" is not "dependent" or even "influenced."

The view expressed by Tolkien, if we can call it a view, is consistent
with the Augustinian view, and more importantly the Aquinian synthesis
that become RC orthodoxy, itself like Boethius influenced by Aristotle
and Plato, or to state it another way, both Augustinian and Boethian in
some part.

Second, I would argue that Tolkien's view of fate, chance, and freewill
is Germanic influenced. I will pick on Beowulf in particular, but much
the same can be seen in other Germanic texts. In Beowulf we have many
expressions about "wyrd", fate, and that fate operates (Wyrd goes where
it must!) and yet in spite of "wyrd", Beowulf nonetheless chooses (never
mentioning of course free will) to take on Grendel and then later
Grendel's Dam. Further, we also have statements about the "Lord's"
interference in events from a general giving Beowulf strength to showing
him the sword with which he defeats Grendel's Dam. But this is
expressed in such a way as to suggest "providence". In other passages
luck or chance is mentioned, though more so in other literatures. The
point is obvious I think but I'll spell it out anyway: In this
literature we have providence, chance, and free will all mentioned, all
operating in the plot and none of it spelled out or properly defined.
That should sound familiar. I am beginning to think that it here that
we should look for Tolkien's ideas as much as anywhere else in this case.

So I don't think Dubs can really sustain her point, the best she can say
is that the two views are consistent and that Tolkien most likely read
Boethius (btw, she mentions the Alfredian translation of Boethius into
Old English, but that translation bears little resemblance in many ways
to the original and Dubs seems unaware of this. I'll have to look again
for specifically issues related to the discussion.) [Another aside: I
have *NOT* read this, but found in a bibliography the intriguing title
Weil, Susanne. "Grace under Pressure: 'Hand-Words,' Wyrd, and Free Will
in Beowulf." Pacific Coast Philol. 24 (1989): 94-104.] And admittedly
there have been analogues noted between Beowulf and Boethius that I'll
have to check out further.


>
> [*] I don't think that Shippey makes the claim that Tolkien is
> directly inspired by Boëthius: as I understand it, he merely uses
> Boëthius' name as an exponent for a pure view (the view that there is
> no evil: there is only absence of good). But I haven't read all of
> /The Road to Middle-earth/, so there might be some extra stuff in
> that, which didn't find its way to /Author of the Century/.
>
>
>>>and I'd be very intested to hear if you have an opinion on
>>>whether there are some other influences.
>>
>>Yes! Germanic mythology. Cursed objects like rings, swords,
>>necklaces etc that bring about the demise the possessor, even to
>>killing one's brother over possession.
>
>
> There are, I agree, strong elements of Germannic mythology in
> Tolkien's works, but Germannic mythology doesn't address providence
> and chance ('A chance-meeting, as we say in Middle-earth.'),

But it does address the issue of fate and chance and free will in the
face of fate. I think it is the modern interpreter who looks at Tolkien
and says "AhA! Providence!" rather than "AHA! Myth!", the one a
philosophical/theological problem that various thinkers address, the
other a story, or set of stories, that try to express a truth and so not
systematic.


and
> though there are elements of the Germannic view of fate that can be
> refound in Tolkien's view this seems more to be a matter of
> individual situations rather than an immanent part of the basic
> world-order, an integrated part of the workings of causality in the
> world.

Oh, I would disagree. Tolkien's Legendarium is very like early medieval
literature: a fusion of Biblical, Greco-Roman, and Germanic mythologies
in a Christian cultural worldview that gives Christianity the top nod.
So I would say that Germanic mythology is present far more than in
"individual situations" and is more an "immanent part of the basic world
order." After all, where do you think the concept of "middle earth"
came from? Or that Melkor likes ice and Sauron fire? Or the "gods"
relationship to the world?


It is the latter that Boëthius attempts in his description,
> and it is in the latter sense that the Music of the Ainur is 'as fate
> to all things else.'

The question then is how "detailed" the music is. Was Frodo for example
destined to fail? Was Gandalf destined to die? Was Saruman destined to
fall? I don't think this is what Tolkien meant.

<snipped some good stuff that I would be simply making the same points
I've already made>
>
>>And therein I think the contradictions and problems in Frodo
>>and the One Ring lie: the fusion of two different systems, in
>>this case somewhat uncomfortably.
>
>
> I don't agree that it is an uncomfortable fusion of ideas, though
> there is certainly a balance of opposing forces. Tolkien, I think,
> manages to incorporate the non-Christian ideas in a Christian
> context; not without tension, but with a tension that, IMO, rather
> tends to help drive the plot and to give an inner dynamic to his sub-
> creation. I can't say that I have given much thought to this aspect
> specifically, but it seems to me that this imperfect fusion is adding
> a layer of complexity to the ethical and philosophical motivations of
> the characters, which helps to make the characters all that much more
> real -- precisely because real people are morally motivated by ideas
> from several belief-systems that are often at odds with each other.

I'm not so sure we're any different here: where uncomfortable fusion, or
imperfect fusion, or a tension of opposing forces, I think we're getting
at the same thing.


> Calvin claiming Divine foreknowledge as the result of
> predetermination:
>
>
>>>How does this relate to the later Augustine, when he comes to the
>>>conclusion that any free will is only the result of unmerited
>>>grace.
>>
>>Depends I think on how you take the "later" Augustine.
>
>
> I was thinking of his anti-Pelagian writings, in particular /De
> Gratia et Libero Arbitrio/, where he claims that free will depends on
> grace, i.e. that for an agent to exercise free will depends directly
> upon God willing it.

Ah, well for strict Calvinism it is God's grace that operates in this
way for the predestined...i. e. they are already predestined, even
though it is God's grace that predestines them. There is no room for
free will of any kind, but God's grace does operate.

>
>>Augustine as you know was not a systematic theologian, but very
>>ad hoc.
>
> [...]
>
>>He wasn't attempting to reconcile his seemingly contradictory
>>views.
>
>
> Good point. I haven't made a thorough study of Augustine yet -- it
> has rather been skimming and reading of synopses, so the context of
> his writings hasn't been getting through quite as clearly as this
> from commentators merely focusing on the lack of coherence and
> consistency between his early and late writings.

Augustine, like many Christian theologians (including the NT writers) is
ad hoc: he addresses at various times problems he saw in the
intellectual currents of fourth and fifth century Christianity. Unlike
Aquinas, Augustine is not developing a system of thought, and so
sometimes his views as he addresses various groups seem to contradict
each other.

>
>>Calvin I think, could be misremembering, doesn't allow for free
>>will at all: its all been determined by God.
>
>
> Determinism, whether causal or Divine, doesn't necessarily preclude
> free will -- there are several models or theories of free will that
> explicitly allow free will to be compatible with determinism. Does
> Calvin say something explicit about free will, or are you
> extrapolating from his position on Divine determinism?

Its a fine line. He says on the one hand, that the soul is without
liberty, but that the soul sins voluntarily--that is, there is no
necessity compelling the soul to sin.
>
>
>>>Since grace comes from God, one could easily argue that this
>>>grace was part of the predestination, and if the omniscient God
>>>gives you sufficient grace to freely choose good, how free, then,
>>>is that choice? At least I think an argument could be constructed
>>>along those lines building on the late Augustine, but taking it
>>>further than he did.
>>
>>One could make such an argument, but Augustine, Luther, and
>>Catholic Orthodoxy carefully avoid that position.
>
>
> Coming from a Lutheran country, it is a bit embarrasing to admit that
> I know more about the early Christian philosophers than about
> Lutheran philosophy, but I do know that both Augustine and the
> Catholic Church would protest such an interpretation. The Catholic
> Encyclopedia[#] even comes close to suggesting that Augustine was
> going a bit too far in his eagerness to refute the Pelagian
> postulate.

Oh yes! Luther in many ways is representative of Catholic
Orthodoxy...really, there were only a few issues that Luther, heavily
influenced by Augustine and Jerome, differed on. But, yes, while
Augustine is an important thinker, not all of his views became official
orthodoxy. The Council of Orange for example in the early sixth century
(not one of the ecumenical councils, but important nonetheless) rejected
Semi-Pelagianism and embraced Augustine's doctrine of sin and grace,
but rejected Augustine's doctrine of predestination.

> But I was interested also in whether Calvin did use an argumentation
> that lies in continuation of Augustine's arguments, or whether his
> approach is different.

Yes, he bases himself in Augustine and continues that tradition.
 >> Stay informed about: NY Teacher Doesn't Know What (S)he's talking about re: mat.. 

Tue, 14 Oct 2008 15:01:38 -0500 from Larry Swain :
> That Tolkien knew Boethius is a given, I think.

Oh come now. The Professor was old at the time of his death, but not
*that* old.




--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://mysite.verizon.net/aznirb/mtr/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm
 >> Stay informed about: NY Teacher Doesn't Know What (S)he's talking about re: mat.. 

Stan Brown wrote:
> Tue, 14 Oct 2008 15:01:38 -0500 from Larry Swain :
>
>>That Tolkien knew Boethius is a given, I think.
>
>
> Oh come now. The Professor was old at the time of his death, but not
> *that* old.

Nice........
 >> Stay informed about: NY Teacher Doesn't Know What (S)he's talking about re: mat.. 

In message
Larry Swain spoke these staves:
>

Thanks, Larry -- I'll have to study this for a bit before I can
answer more intelligently than that

(A couple of fast comments below)

<snip>

> On the other hand, I don't buy Dubs' argument. I can really do no
> more than offer an extended outline of remarks, but may actually
> work this up if someone hasn't already.

I agree that her argument doesn't hold, though you mention a lot of
extra reasons for rejecting it. The point that I have focused on is
that her argument about the basic consistency between Boëthius'
description and the 'organisation' that is implied in Tolkien's world
is not the perfect match she claims, and that the differences in some
respects seem rather fundamental.

> First, the best the article can really come up with is that as
> Tolkien writes about "fate" "chance" and "luck" (he never
> explicitly mentions free will, but that is suggested in certain
> phrases)

Tolkien did in fact mention free will in a draft to the original
'Music of the Ainur' (in the /Book of Lost Tales 1/) and of course
also in commentary in some of his letters. Not that that has any
direct bearing on your argument here.

> that it appears to be consistent with the Boethian view of the
> matter.

Though not quite as consistent as she would make it out to be -- at
least as I read it.

> Ok, but "consistent" is not "dependent" or even "influenced."

Right, another good point.

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.

Amicus Plato — amicus Aristoteles — magis amica veritas
- Sir Isaac Newton
 >> Stay informed about: NY Teacher Doesn't Know What (S)he's talking about re: mat..