Noldorin Christianity

[Nautipus]

Originally Posted by NelyafinweMaitimo

I haven't been on for a while, and there are many good points here that I would like to be able to discuss in greater detail, but I've been doing a lot of travelling - unfortunately, my father had a heart attack (he'll be fine, though).

What I do wish to say is that I believe that we cannot deny our faith, no matter what it is founded on. One cannot force oneself to believe the teachings of Christ or Muhammad. Rather, I believe that one must follow whatever path drives them to live well and passionately.

Consider the Hindu proverb: "It is a fool who believe he can walk a path that does not lead to God."

My heart goes out to you and your family. About your father.



Anyway, about the rest of your post. Someone can live meaningfully and paaionately, but for who? Who (or what) is a person living for, when they choose to walk their own path? That proverb is extremely true, but I bet that path doesnt lead through the pages of a fictional book.

[NelyafinweMaitimo]

(I mean this only as a point of discussion, and do not wish to discredit anyone's beliefs)

What exactly separates the Bible from a work of fiction? Is it that it is older? That more people believe in it?

[Nautipus]

Originally Posted by NelyafinweMaitimo

(I mean this only as a point of discussion, and do not wish to discredit anyone's beliefs)

What exactly separates the Bible from a work of fiction? Is it that it is older? That more people believe in it?

Like I said before, I'm not trying to offend or discredit, I'm just curious.

But about the Bible, it is a historically accurate representation, it represents events that took place thousands of years ago, nuggets of wisdom passed down to man from the Almighty, and stories of His mighty influence, and His son's death for me on the cross. The difference is that my God was not invented in a work of fiction (no doubt a very illuminating work, but it is fiction) He was communicated to. He still acts, I can talk to my God and be assured that he will listen, that he cares. I know that my God exists through not only a book but the testimonies of thousands of followers and fellow believers. The Bible is not the only facet of my beleif, in fact, I discourage those who use it as the one single approach to learning about God, I can learn about him by talking to him, can you?

Oh, and seriously, what is in the end for you? Are you serving a purpose here? Who do you live for, yourself, others, a god? I just want to know.

[Nautipus]

Originally Posted by NelyafinweMaitimo

Please remember that Eruhinism also is founded on the mythology of Finland, which was the "religion" of the natives of this area for thousands of years. That aspect is no different from a Guatemalan who believes in Quetzalcoatl, a Celt who believes in Danu and the Tuatha Dé Danann, or an Israelite who believes in Jesus.

(Sorry, didnt catch where you'd edited your post. )

There is a big difference, those were based on stories, yes, but they were based of stories that were meant to inspire a religion, Tolkien never had it in mind that a religious group(s) would be formed off of his work. He wanted his stories to inspire, but not to the heights that your taking them. Would you say, too, that The Hobbit, LotR, and Rover Random are also religious tetaments? If not, why?

[Tuinor]

Roverandom is one word, Nautipus.

[Nautipus]

Originally Posted by Tuinor

Roverandom is one word, Nautipus.

Why do you tear me down, T? Why?

[Tuinor]

I'm sorry, man. I'm just too particular when it comes to Tolkien's works.

[Andreth adaneth]

Thanks for posting this Nelya! (I'm just shortening your name, if you don't mind. It's kind of long hmm? haha *is lazy* )
I had never heard of this before, though I did hear from some kind of Pagan "Elvish" religion before, but that was really...different (they seriously believe in Elves. No offence to them, but that goes a bit far.) It wouldn't really be my thing, since I see the Sil as a purely fictional work, though it does, of course, have religious meanings as well, since it was written by a Christian author.

I do agree with some of Tolkien's views on things, but I see them more like...personal spiritual "insights", not a real religion. His way of interpreting the world/his believes.

It definitely sounds interesting though. How did you first "discover" it? It's completely unknown here, as far as I know (here being the Netherlands )

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Hello, all! Sorry for resurrecting a dead thread, but I just had to.

I have heard of something similar to this before; I never heard the name Noldorin Christian applied to it, nor do I think I heard Eruhin before. I'm trying to recall what it was called, but I'm afraid I can't. When I heard it referenced before, it was considered to have originated in Russia, and was described as simply believing in the Silmarillion and probably LOTR (I don't remember for certain), and taking these and the Letters as a sort of "scripture". I got the impression that it was basically a brand of Neo-paganism. This Christian version is kind of interesting. I keep on meaning to try to read the Sil spiritually, but I never have, I'm afraid.

I very much like the idea of creativity as bringing man to God! Something that has bothered me for a long time is the exact nature of the "image and likeness of God" which man is said to possess. The most commonly given answer is "reason", but I am dubious of that, for several reasons. An interesting hypothesis that I have heard is that it is love. But I am most inclined to guess (though I wouldn't make any definitive affirmation on the question!) that it is the ability to create. So, of course, my interest was quite piqued when I saw that.

[brownjenkins]

Maybe empathy? The ability to put ourselves in one another's shoes.

It's something unique to humans, unlike the ability to create and maybe even love, which other animals besides humans seem to possess, at least to some degree (i.e. beavers make good dams! )

[Gwaimir Windgem]

That's not what I'm talking about when I refer to creation. I'm thinking more along the lines of art. Something like just a beaver building a dam, or a mountaineer building a cabin, or someone making a frying pan, or something like that, is not, to me, the creation of something new, but simply the re-arranging of what was before to serve some end. When you make something beautiful, however, that beauty is brand-new.

[brownjenkins]

That's arguable since, in one way, everything we create is simply rearranging what already exists. Also, art does serve an end: entertainment (and often a way to make a living too).

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Indeed, making something is always (for us, at least) re-arranging pre-existing materials. My contention, however, is that when you re-arrange them in a beautiful way, you bring about beauty in your material, which did not exist before.

The end of art is not entertainment, but Beauty itself. When making a living is the concern, the result is not art, not in the sense I use the word, at least. When I speak of Art, I mean something which is pursued for its own sake, or for that of Beauty.

But, I suppose you'd have to believe in objective beauty to agree with this, anyway...