The Lord of the Rings

I thought it interesting how the people of Middle Earth were almost entirely oblivious to the existence of Hobbits. The only knowledge that the men of Rohan had were from legends of "halflings".

The hobbit is coming out in december, should be good. It tells a very good tale about going on a journey and leaving your comfort zone. The core of mans spirit comes from new experiences - Chris Mcandless.

'The core of man's spirit comes from new experiences' I'd say as 'humans are good at adapting to change' which arguably is why they have become too numerous and too powerful for their own good.

Do you think The Ring would ever try to be independant of Sauron? Maybe even try to take over the world for itself?

Isn't the One Ring to rule them all an independent psychological force by definition? If some human is taken over by the Ring that human is not free from the will of the Ring which is to rule them all, all the other rings of power.

Isn't the One Ring to rule them all an independent psychological force by definition? If some human is taken over by the Ring that human is not free from the will of the Ring which is to rule them all, all the other rings of power.

You are correct. But I was talking about Sauron, not any mere person. Gandalf said, "the ring is trying to get back to it's master. Would it ever not want a master?

I think that Tolkien may have introduced the Sauron person so as to make the nature of evil more applicable to real people, since Sauron is a person. The One Ring is a sort of transportable, psychological, version of Sauron.

I think that Tolkien may have introduced the Sauron person so as to make the nature of evil more applicable to real people, since Sauron is a person. The One Ring is a sort of transportable, psychological, version of Sauron.

Interesting. I guess I've always thought of the ring as being seperate.

I think that Tolkien may have introduced the Sauron person so as to make the nature of evil more applicable to real people, since Sauron is a person. The One Ring is a sort of transportable, psychological, version of Sauron.

Interesting. I guess I've always thought of the ring as being seperate.

If Tolkein was drawing on Catholic theology, as well as the Nordic mythology, then the God hidden in the background of the Lord of the Rings is big on delegated authority, The Ring was clearly a tool, created with a longing for it's master, just as theologically, we have an inner longing to get back to God. But, just as Frodo was able to get the ring to a place of destruction, so the devil is able to get us to Hell, in spite of our "good intentions." The evil parallel of good. But, the overarching God, that Frodo could and did call on in necessity (compare to our OMG! Pathetic!), was there to make Frodo succeed while the evil beings carrying us to Hell have to count on us not calling on that God. The ring drew the black riders, but could not call them, without getting Frodo to put it on. But, Frodo could call on Elbereth.

But, the overarching God, that Frodo could and did call on in necessity (compare to our OMG! Pathetic!), was there to make Frodo succeed while the evil beings carrying us to Hell have to count on us not calling on that God. The ring drew the black riders, but could not call them, without getting Frodo to put it on. But, Frodo could call on Elbereth.

No intention of nit-picking here but, since Tolkien was indeed Roman Catholic, it might be prudent to point out that Elbereth is more like the Virgin Mary than God. The mother of Jesus is especially revered in Catholicism, especially in Mediterranean and Latin American countries, and many Catholics direct their prayers to her rather than to God the Father. Similarly, Elbereth was not God; she was a Vala, which is sort of equivalent to an archangel. She was in fact the Queen of the Valar (as Mary is often called "Queen of the Angels") and the most beloved of all the Valar by the elves, and they called to her in their songs more than any other Vala. In Middle Earth, God (Eru, a.k.a. Illuvatar) was always more remote, was almost never addressed directly, and never appeared in any form visible to elves or humans.

But, the overarching God, that Frodo could and did call on in necessity (compare to our OMG! Pathetic!), was there to make Frodo succeed while the evil beings carrying us to Hell have to count on us not calling on that God. The ring drew the black riders, but could not call them, without getting Frodo to put it on. But, Frodo could call on Elbereth.

No intention of nit-picking here but, since Tolkien was indeed Roman Catholic, it might be prudent to point out that Elbereth is more like the Virgin Mary than God. The mother of Jesus is especially revered in Catholicism, especially in Mediterranean and Latin American countries, and many Catholics direct their prayers to her rather than to God the Father. Similarly, Elbereth was not God; she was a Vala, which is sort of equivalent to an archangel. She was in fact the Queen of the Valar (as Mary is often called "Queen of the Angels") and the most beloved of all the Valar by the elves, and they called to her in their songs more than any other Vala. In Middle Earth, God (Eru, a.k.a. Illuvatar) was always more remote, was almost never addressed directly, and never appeared in any form visible to elves or humans.

Thank you! Of course, now that you point it out, clearly the case, which not being Catholic myself, I never before saw.

Groktruth wrote:

The Ring was clearly a tool, created with a longing for it's master,

Groktruth has separated Sauron and The Ring into master and tool, while I see them as equal though different versions of the same evil. Therefore Groktruth's idea is Platonic, because in Grok's view Sauron is The Ring's superior and master. I think that Grok is right as to Tolkien's intentions as a Catholic. However it could be more useful for modern people to view The Ring as transportable evil, rather than as tool of master evil.

To A Poster, thanks for the information about Virgin Mary and Elbereth. Poster's explanation of Elbereth and Mariolatry makes me feel partial to Mariolatry.If JC is consubstantial with God, then it's necessary to have someone more human like Mary to intercede with the Almighty, as the more Earthly Mary protects the idea of the Almighty against idolatry.

Yes, it makes sense to me that Catholics should pray to Mary and also to "patron saints" since of all the heavenly panoply, she and the so-called community of saints are the only ones that started out as humans and might be predisposed to the human dilemma. Eliminating the community of saints is one example of where I think the Protestant Reformation "threw the baby out with the bathwater."

Until recently, the Catholic Church historically supported "Mary cults" wherever they cropped up around the world (Our Lady of Guadalupe, Our Lady of Lourdes, etc.), which surprises me given that traditional Judeo-Christianity has no regard for the ancient principle of the Sacred Feminine. I'm not clear on why the Vatican is so resistant to the newest cult that has erupted in the former Yugoslav Republic.

Poster, do you mean the Medjugorje cult where Mary imparted secrets to some children, who are now I suppose grown-up or perhaps dead I don't know?

Perhaps the RCC has decided that the kids were not reliable . I think that the RCC is very careful about establishing any miracles. It may not be Mariolatry that the RCC is against in this instance, but rather idolatry. I suppose that Mariolatry can sink into idolatry. If so the RCC is right because idolatry in its widest sense is bad.The apophatic tradition seems to avoid the danger of idolatry.( I don't mean simply statues, relics etc.)

Yes, that's the one. I caught the tail-end of a TV show about them a few months ago. The children are now grown up and still having visions, and thousands of people are pilgrimaging (is that a word?) to the hillside each year.

I know that the RCC has dedicated investigators for debunking claims of miracles, so I suppose they have a duty here. It just seems so bass-ackwards that something as psychologically understandable as a cult of hope, around an established iconic spriritual figure, arising in a war-torn region, should be harrassed and discredited, while the previous Pope made a hobby of beatifying more people than any Pope in history, and he doesn't have to answer to anybody.