Posted on 11/09/2001 8:04:52 AM PST by jrherreid
In his great fantasy epic, The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien also portrays magic as deception. Supernatural powers that do not rightly belong to man are repeatedly shown as having a corrupting influence on man. While it is true that Gandalf, one of the central characters, is called a "wizard" throughout, he is not in fact a classical sorcerer. Tolkien maintains that Gandalf is rather a kind of moral guardian, similar to guardian angels but more incarnate. (Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, edited by Humphrey Carpenter and Christopher Tolkien, Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 1981) In letters 155, 156 and 228 he explains his depiction of matter and spirit, and the distinction between good magic and evil magic. In essence Tolkien's "good magic" is not in fact what we think of as magic in the real world. Gandalf's task is primarily to advise, instruct, and arouse to resistance the minds and hearts of those threatened by Sauron, the Dark Lord of this saga. Gandalf does not do the work for them; they must use their natural gifts-and in this we see an image of grace building on nature, never overwhelming nature or replacing it. Gandalf's gifts are used sparingly, and then only so far as they assist the other creatures in the exercise of their free will and their moral choices.
This is a very subtle and clever way for the author to make his point by slightly changing what is actually written by Tolkein.
First, understand this: In Middle-Earth magic is not considered evil by it's own existance. Since Tolkien "sub-created" Middle-Earth, he can make the rules of Middle-Earth. Some other rules of Middle-Earth include very little religious activity (only one scene which shows any form of ceremony and that is in the third book), a poly-Valaristic governship of Middle-Earth (Iluvatar, the Creator, created the Valar, or arch-angels, and gave them dominion over creation. Iluvatar rarely directly interacts with his creation.), and "evolution" (The hobbits themselves appear to have been a race of man, orcs are elves that Morgoth twisted, trolls are Ents that were twisted by Morgoth, Uruk-Hai are a cross breed of orcs and men created by Saruman, etc.). While Tolkien was a devout Catholic and a dedicated apologist for Christianity, these are the rules he created for Middle-Earth.
Second, Gandalf is a Wizard is the very traditional sense. He is a Maiar, lesser angel, rather than human, but he is in every way a wizard. The five Istari came to Middle-Earth to oppose Sauron, a Maiar that was devoted to Sauron, because the Valar had decided not to directly interfere with Middle-Earth anymore. Gandalf took on the physical body of an old man, although it was immortal like an elf's body. When he was at the doors to Moria (you may not be there yet, so I will try to be careful) he tried to cast every opening spell known to elves, men and orcs. Yep, he didn't use an internal power, or an inherent trait, he tried "spells" known to elves, men and orcs. Do elves have an inherent magic? Yes. But they also have spells. Do men have an inherent magic? No. But they also have spells.
Third, we turn to the magic of the elves. First, Elrond at Rivendell. Rivendell is a place where evil cannot come. When the dark riders attempt to cross the ford of the Bruinen, the river rises up at sweeps them away. Is this the power of the river? No, it is the power of Elrond, who holds one of the 3 rings of power given to the elves. By himself, he could not protect the Valley of Rivendell, but with the ring, he has the power to do so. The same with Galadriel and Lothlorien.
As we can see, Tolkien, as sub-creator, has created rules within his creation that would be witchcraft here in reality. What Rowlings has done is sub-create her world with rules that would be witchcraft in reality. But it's not reality, any more than Middle-Earth, or MacBeth, or 1001 Arabian Nights, or Cinderella.
Gotta run. I'll drop in tonight for further discussion.
Look forward to picking it up when you have the time.
Regards.
Fr. LeBar c/o
Archdiocese of New York
1011 First Avenue
New York NY 10022-4134
Or you can call the archdiocese at:
212-371-1000
Would you believe a videotape? I doubt it. A photograph? Nah. How about an audiotape of someone speaking in ancient Sumerian? That wouldn't work either.
I know, how about a 2000-year-old, pigment-free, burial cloth bearing the negative image of a crucified man, which also contains grayscale, topographic information showing a three dimensional figure when processed with specialized NASA terrain-mapping equipment?
At least that would be hard to fabricate, since scientists don't know how it was done.
That would be good.
Still, Rings does seem to be significantly different from Potter. The primary difference seems to be that Harry uses wizardry to pursue his own ends, whereas Gandalf and Frodo are self-sacrificing and use their supernatural gifts in order to do good and avoid evil.
That's the most I can say without having read the book and having read various synopses.
That's the point.
Huh?
How did the forger, 2000 years ago, create a negative image of a man, without pigment? And how did he also know how to create a grayscale, topographic map that reveals a 3D image when analyzed with sophisticated terrain-mapping equipment?
Either the "forger" was more intelligent than the combined minds of the world's greatest scientists, or the shroud was created supernaturally.
Which position requires more "faith"?
Some people don't believe because believing would cramp their lifestyle, if you know what I mean. Would that be true in your case?
The point, since it wasn't clear, is that first you state scientific readings, however debatable they may be, to support your claim on the authenticity of the shroud,
Yes. Conclusive scientific findings that the Shroud is a negative image and that when the image is analyzed with terrain-mapping equipment the three-dimensional image of a man appears.
...and then you blithely state that 'scientists don't know how it was done'.
Blithely? It's a fact. No one has offered a scientific explanation for the creatin of the image. There is no pigment on the cloth, for example. And the image wasn't caused by scorching. The point is that it seems rather strange that a team of many modern scientists can't replicate what a supposed 2000-year-old forger did.
The evidence doesn't hold up, however much you may like to pitch it that way, enough to state one way or the other how it came to be. You can't have it both ways.
OK, how was the image created?
That it was created supernaturally, I'd say ;-D
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.