Login | Register
 
Message Board | Latest Posts | Your Recent Posts | Rules

Thread: Worshiping the Valar?

Is this discussion interesting? Share it on Twitter!

Bottom of Page    Message Board > Characters > Worshiping the Valar?   << [1] [2]
You boys are too much. To your room!
There, we've had a whole day's break, so my locked thread is now unlocked in case someone has something to say that isn't a rehash of what they have been saying ad nausium. Orc Grinning Smilie
Thinking of the thread 'The concept of Eru's Creation'...

Grondy (if I may call you that), you're a mod here and I respect that, and you seem like a nice guy, but people usually don't change their stance in a thread, and good civil debate, illuminating Tolkien, even trying to poke holes in 'contrary interpretations', is just part of the chat (to my mind). Anyway I don't see much difference with the other thread as far as methods of debate. I brought in new Tolkien material to (IMO) strengthen my stance and looked at related issues that came up (for example 'worship' of the Virgin, or looking closer at the HME quotes).

I realize these are judgement calls. Maybe the other thread naturally had a wider scope than here and so was arguably more interesting, or had a couple more people involved, but again I don't see the two threads as all that different as far as debate goes.

That said, I don't really want to debate about debating either. Back to the fun stuff!
Quote:
Grondy (if I may call you that), you're a mod here and I respect that, and you seem like a nice guy, but people usually don't change their stance in a thread, and good civil debate, illuminating Tolkien, even trying to poke holes in 'contrary interpretations', is just part of the chat (to my mind). Anyway I don't see much difference with the other thread as far as methods of debate.

Because of what is underlined into the part I quoted, when one says A and the other says B, it might just be better to agree to disagree - even if the other continues to say B regardless that it has been pointed out numerous times that the author of the works that are discussed in this forum said A too.
OK but the point is what I have done here is not all that different with respect to the debate in the other thread, nor out of line with respect to Grondy's own characterization of discussion (versus argument) there.
Ok we have all agreed to disagree about agreeing with each other.

Galin - whilst it is true that you do present some interesting points in debates (like the Himling one) it is clear that no matter what the opposing evidence is you would never change your mind. I am similar in a way but not quite to the same degree. If presented with such concrete evidence I will usually allow my err or at the least admit defeat by not posting again (but I also use this tactic to show that I don't flog dead horses).

Clearly we are not going to change sides so just let other people view the evidence provided and make up there own minds.

My summary on this topic is:
The Valar cannot be classed as our interpretation of Angels or Gods without problems arising for either. However if we are to say which the Valar more closesly resemble - Angels or Gods, as in 'Greek-Gods' not THE God, then I think gods is closer. They each have the own speciality of Power like various Gods of our religions, they helped create much of the history of the world through there music, plus they made the world as it is seen in later Ages. This is far more like the work or Gods, nothing at all like Angel behaviour.
I admit they are Angelic beings, meaning 'Divine', beings from beyond the world but not Angels.
Above all this there is the fact that in virtually every relevent published work of Tolkien relating to a complete history of Arda the Valar are named gods. Forget about saying 'he would have changed it to Angels if he could' - you cannot possibly speculate on what he MIGHT have done. What he HAS done is name them gods. In his letters he goes into more deeper explanation of his reasons but nowhere does he say 'I was wrong to name the Valar gods, I should have called them Angels'.
Quote:
Galin - whilst it is true that you do present some interesting points in debates (like the Himling one) it is clear that no matter what the opposing evidence is you would never change your mind. I am similar in a way but not quite to the same degree.


Please do not make sweeping assumptions about what I will or will not do -- and don't pretend to know something about me to any 'degree' based on assumption.

Leave the personal comments and assumptive 'evaluations' at the door please.
Clearly touchy subject obviously. But what I said was not an assumption - it came from your own words:

"Grondy (if I may call you that), you're a mod here and I respect that, and you seem like a nice guy, but people usually don't change their stance in a thread, and good civil debate, illuminating Tolkien, even trying to poke holes in 'contrary interpretations', is just part of the chat (to my mind). Anyway I don't see much difference with the other thread as far as methods of debate."

I have come across many people who have changed there opinion in threads, you clearly don't.
So its a fact not an assumption.
That says people (people in general) don't usually change their stances. I have found this to be generally so in many discussions. In specific cases where people are faced with good solid evidence (or arguably so) that appears to contradict their views, or texts that they were not aware of perhaps... that's a different matter in any case.

Again, leave the assumptions at the door (including that you think that something is a 'touchy subject' seemingly based on some imagined 'tone' in my post). Also leave the straw man arguments, since nobody said that Tolkien was going to change 'gods' to 'angels' specifically, in the internal texts.

Christopher did not, obviously.

You've made your argument and summary. If that's it, why not just leave it for everyone to judge just how strong it is.
Quote:
You've made your argument and summary. If that's it, why not just leave it for everyone to judge just how strong it is.


All ready said that Galin but you still felt the need to post again and again (must be the last word trait in you - oops I made an assumption, pray forgive me).
No, you made your summary and felt the need to make unfounded comments about me.

The thread could have ended had you simply posted your summary.
I did end my post with a summary. You felt the need to become indignant about my evaluation of your argument.
  << [1] [2]