The Hobbit Movie Forum

[Otto's World]

Thank you, GB.

As I've said before, I don't like conflict, and prefer to find explanations that can make everyone happy rather than ones that doom some people to hell or that trash people's beloved beliefs. So I really like Joseph Campbell's idea that religions spring from a common source. Even if that common source is that we're all homo sapiens and we think enough alike that our explanations of the world will have a lot in common.

And isn't it cool--in a fairy-tale-come-true kind of tingly way--that several different cultures came up with the image of the lion's face with his mane connecting with the concept of "golden" and the sun as life-giver potency?

When you mentioned someone battling with the bull or the "horned god," it made me think of Jason in the Labyrinth with the Minotaur, and also of Jacob wrestling with the "man" (God). The most meaningful story I have heard in relation to the Minotaur is in Stephen King's novel Rose Madder, in which the Minotaur is used to represent the angry male animal force of a woman's abusive husband.

The story of Jacob wrestling with God--I took that to mean (after much head scratching ) that Jacob (Israel) will always wrestle with God and engage with him. They want relationship with him, but they are always wondering and they tolerate questions, and THAT'S WHY it's okay to have 6 rabbis in a room with 8 different interpretations of a text, because disagreement and dialog and dialectic is a totally fine method of understanding and relating to God.

I wonder if there is any way of blending those themes. Mithra would be a god tackling a bull--tackling the horned god, possibly. God tackling a different image of God. The golden sun force tackling the animal life force. Um...human nature battling heavenly nature?

Have not had coffee yet. Should not attempt such a dicussion.

[Gandalfs Beard]

I'm with you Otto's World . Though I am sympathetic to the cause of Atheists (being that their fates are intertwined with Agnostics), I take umbrage at the more Fundamentalist among them. Secularism isn't intended to suppress religious thought, but to allow it to flourish in it's myriad forms without fear of reprisal from State Sanctioned Religions.

It's quite likely that the Mitra/Mithra connection is relatively contiguous. It's when the Romans took it up the line of continuity gets sticky. I was thinking the same thing about Jason and the Minotaur and the "man". My guess is that the Romans folded the stories into Mithraism when they absorbed it. The myths seem to imply a changing of the guard in theology. It seems to mirror the shifting worldviews as polytheism gives way to monotheism. Hmmm!

I'm sorry, I called my friend again, but I haven't heard back yet . He may be busy preparing for his programme, or had to have his broken heel attended to. I assure you though, your questions will not go unanswered.

Gandalfs Beard

[Gandalfs Beard]

Hi Otto's world , I've got some info from the Gypsy Scholar (my friend).

Green Man--William Anderson 1990 It's an oversize book with a lot of photos and artwork and Gypsy says it's very comprehensive.

The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries: Cosmology & Salvation in the Ancient World, by David Ulansey (1989 Oxford U. Press)--Gypsy says this book covers the Roman version thouroughly and really discusses the theological/Cosmological aspects of this mystery religion. And laying out the shared symbolism. You'll probably have to do a bit of digging to delve further into the history, as before about 600BC the Mithra cult is shrouded in mystery.

He didn't have a single comprehensive book detailing the history of the Horned God, but he says Campbell definitely touches on some of it in the Power of Myth and Primitive Mythology. Campbell also discusses Mithras/Mithra in Occidental Mythology. As mentioned Eisler and McKenna both reference at least the Horned Goddess's history.

He reminded me also of an excellent book I had forgotten about, Gods and Goddesses of Old Europe--by Maria Gimbutas. We both remember she discusses the Horned God in her book. Anyway, I think I have a couple of books I may not have mentioned yet. I'll keep you abreast as I find them.

Gandalfs Beard

[Otto's World]

Thank you, GB.

And, sadly for you, the space trilogy has a LOT to do with the idea of balance and the right relationship of the sexes. I'm listening to an audiobook version, which is a lot less painful than reading the paper version. I think that the female character, Jane, is supposed to accept that she's a woman and give up her book project (which was lame anyway) and submit to her role in the marriage and have a baby. I'm waiting for this to happen...and waiting to gag. Maybe I will not gag. Mayb I will see the light.

I wonder about your arguing that Lewis's ideas are OUTSIDE of Christianity, because one might argue that this blending with paganism is part of hte Christian tradition. I think the author of Planet Narnia would say that. There are many "streams of living water" in the faith--although you really have to dig and be kind of intellectual and look a lot on your own to find it...so maybe that's a pretty lame argument to make.

[Gandalfs Beard]

Years ago when I first began thinking about such things, I really thought Paganism and Christianity could be reconciled in a Pagan Christ kind of way (I sort of still do). I get the sense that through Medievalism Lewis felt the same way; so I don't necessarily view Lewis's subconscious worldview as being "outside" Christianity (this seems to be the Gnostic view also). Unfortunately the vast majority of mainstream and not so mainstream Christian Churches do not countenance such views and see them as Heresy .

Also, like many Gnostics, I saw Christ not as The One; but One of many masters who were redeeming mankind--not from sin--but from illusion. And that through the process of enlightenment one could attain equal status or oneness with the Universal Spirit. Except for a very few Universalists, no modern Christians would be able to accept these views as "within" Christianity. Which makes me sad too, but more for them than myself. Christians such as yourself, and Tolkien and Lewis have a much broader framework, a bigger colour pallette with which to frame/paint their faith. And that is exciting. Unshackled from tradition one is able to explore all possibilities, to "create" one's own religion as one discovers more Truths with which to build it.

Elaine Pagels in her book on Gnosticism shows how dangerous these kinds of views were to the early Roman Church. The Church leaders saw that these sorts of notions would undermine their authority. The Gnostics alone among Christians, Jews and many Pagans of that time period elevated women to the status of equals. When Gnostic groups had meetings they would draw lots to determine who would play the roles of Bishop, Priest, and reader. Women could become Bishop or any of the leadership roles. These roles lasted until the meeting ended and lots were drawn at the next meeting, thus eliminating any permanent heirarchy. Well that was going to fly with the emerging Orthodoxy like a lead balloon .

So indeed, though I might view Lewis's Pagan aspects as compatible with his Christian aspects, that notion is "outside" the mainstream of modern Christianity. I should end on this note though: Many Gnostics thought their's should be a "secret" tradition--one that could go to Orthodox Churches on Sunday--but that was revealed to those who were ready to go beyond orthodoxy to explore the Higher Mysteries of the Universe .

Gandalfs Beard

[Gandalfs Beard]

P.S. Thinking about Michael Ward. Apparently those Anglican Scholars are an interesting lot . They seem more willing to engage in "heretical" thinking than any other mainstream Christianity. But seeing as Tolkien was Catholic, maybe it's just we Brits . I'm not sure what it is about British intellectuals, but we (am I being too Hubristic ) seem to have a penchant for thinking outside the box.

Gandalfs Beard

[Otto's World]

GB, you said this:

Also, like many Gnostics, I saw Christ not as The One; but One of many masters who were redeeming mankind--not from sin--but from illusion. And that through the process of enlightenment one could attain equal status or oneness with the Universal Spirit.

I think it was Dietrich Bonhoeffer who said that Jesus did not die on the cross for our sins so that we would not have to; he showed us how to do it. Those aren't his exact words. He meant that it wasn't a pure gift and we're not all simply "off the hook" now because of it; rather we are all supposed to emulate him. He was a model to follow--and the suffering part was a part of the model too. You know, and not that we are all expected to DIE (though Bonhoeffer actually did--he was killed by the Nazis for speaking and writing against them) but that often doing the right thing can involve jumping a lot of hurdles and enduring some white-knuckle moments,and maybe enduring some tedium but you do it anyway even when it "hurts."

I was talking to a Jewish friend about this, because I have heard a lot of Jews kind of rolling their eyes a the Christian idea that Jesus "took away all of our sins"--as if that's a really childish la-la irresponsible idea. Like it's kind of offensive because their belief is that we have a responsibility to work to redeem the world and bring about The New Jerusalem--that our lives are important as is the work that we do. The Jesus-on-the-cross idea sounds to them like an invitation to cop out or abdicate responsibility. So I told my friend about what Bonhoeffer said about Jesus--being a model, even as a model of suffering, and she thought that sounded pretty much like an idea she could swallow--one that would mesh with the spirit of Judaism pretty well. (I always put more credence on Christian ideas that agree with Judaism).

Oh...got off track, sorry. Anyway, I don't know if that fits with the Gnostic idea or not. It sounds like it does.

[Gandalfs Beard]

I'll try to keep this short Otto's World; I don't want to get all weirdy like I did on the Fairy thread I really should get some sleep.

Anyway, I've heard of some of Bonhoeffers ideas and I liked what I heard, but I'm not really informed about him. It definitely fits in with Jewish thought. The Gnostic thing is a bit more complex, but I think it's along the same line of thought. It's important to know that Though Gnosticism was largely Christian, there were Jewish, Greek and Egyptian Gnostics. And it seems that Gnosticism may...May have roots in Hindu/Buddhist thought. But it's kind of mixed up and noones really sure what came from where. Some think it was Greek influenced Judaism that was around in the century or so before Christ. But then Many say it was Hellenized Jews that developed Christianity anyway. Of course the Gnostics claimed to have the "real" Christianity themselves. They saw orthodox Christians as believing in a "false" religion. As their worldview is so similar to many Hindu/Buddhist ideas I'm tempted to believe that--but the scientist in me won't let me accept anything as "Gospel" (pun intended). I should probably leave off here--but if you can find yourself a copy of the complete Nag Hammadi Library (I have a 1988 edition edited by James G Robinson published by Harper San Francisco) and also a copy of Elaine Pagels book--The Gnostic Gospels--you will be in fine stead to delve in. There's some good analysis in the Nag Hammadi, but Elaine Pagels really helps to understand the different strains of Gnosticism and how it all fits in with Judaism and the other forms of early Christianity.

Gandalfs Beard

[Otto's World]

My husband has The Gnostic Gospels. I know this because I have packed it and sorted it and shelved it and repacked it abouta bazillion times since we've been married with all of the moves. Your description sounds way more interesting than the back cover of the book indicates.

[Durin]

Well, my friends, while some of you have seemed to stay on topic of Tolkien's view of Feminism, saying that this room is indeed, about him, and not you. Tolkien, in the books, seemed to Treat women with respect and rather a bit different from men. Yet, Behold, if you truly look at the Story line, there are two forces at work in the World of Middle Earth. The Forces of Good and Evil. With Evil you seem to have Dark, people, all whom everyone hates, and sees cruel. They are ruled by yet, a more Cruel Leader, the Dark Lord, Sauron. Sauron, of course, is not quite a man, but, something almost indescribable, but his gender is Male.

On the Forces of Good, you have Elves, Dwarves, Men, and Hobbits, all which are divided into many counterparts and subgroups in which the Men of the East are under the Control of the Dark Lord. The most respectable and, If I may say so myself, powerful races on Middle Earth are the Elves. And, Go figure, The Leader of the Elves and the Free People's of Middle Earth, is in my view, Galadriel. Many people may rebuke this statement, but I believe this is what Tolkien intended, though I have never heard his thoughts in first person, very sadly.

This is just something random I noticed, that the Forces of Galadriel over come the Darkness, and that he might actually favor women over men. Yes, yes, I know I have almost no Facts to support my Theory, but yet, I believe it to be true! Feel Free to Discuss!

Best Regards,

Durin