Rob Harding
Well-Known Member
I’m more familiar with Welsh folklore and the Mabinogion (even then, only sparsely) but can’t think of any real comparisons
Occasionally a religious person - a rabbi or a priest - will write or say something about how the best, kindest, most tolerant people they know are non-religious: humanists, agnostics, and even atheists. They are generally quite puzzled by this.Well take it this way: sometimes i hope religious people are right and i am wrong.
Wizard of Oz is really interesting! King Gorice and Ming are both technically after Tolkien's dark lords, as he started with Melko quite early before the 1920ies i think.
But there should be similar characters to Gorice and Ming in German myth and fairytale and Arthuriana i guess... the wizard Janibas comes to my mind for example, or several sorcerer/Giant Tyrants from arthurian knight adventures.Ming is an Alien King and Janibas is an evil human magician but the son of Orkise, a haethen mountainngiant king whose name we clearly recognize as roman orcus.
Archimago, the Black hermit, the Burning dargon knight and Sarant have def7nitely been guessed to be "Avatars of the devil...
Occasionally a religious person - a rabbi or a priest - will write or say something about how the best, kindest, most tolerant people they know are non-religious: humanists, agnostics, and even atheists. They are generally quite puzzled by this.
That depends on what do you mean by "good". Some people are cruel to animals but will not harm a human. Some are nice to their own tribe but do not think it wrong to cannibalize on their enemies. Where there is no standard, there is no way to meassure a person against.I don't get the puzzled part - do they really believe that God is the only reason for a person to be good? The people I know who say this, allow for other reasons.
That deands on what do you mean by "good". Some people are cruel to animals but will not harm a human. Some are nice to their own tribe but do not think it wrong to canibilise on their enemies. Where there is no standard, there is no way to meassure a person against.
And all of those are possible with or without God.
Agreed. The Bible isn’t written to be a moral guidebook or a series of parables on how to live. It’s a cohesive narrative which ought to have the by-product of creating culture. However, the ideas we look at as moral are not always wholly unique or original. In fact, many are evolutionary traits that bind humans and ensure we thrive. Being a ‘good person’ isn’t unique to believers of the Judeo-Christian god. But equally, that isn’t what the Bible presents itself to be. It’s a worldview statement centring around a narrative biography. I know many believers who would prefer they were wrong, and I often think that many believers focus greatly on the life to come and forgot to create the kingdom here and now, while many who believe that existence is finite have a very strong sense of urgency and are motivated to bring about change. It’s swings and roundabouts.
But back to Dark Lords. Is there a prerequisite for the Dark Lord model to a supernatural being? I’m thinking now of military leaders who’ve been mythologised. The Gengis Khans as villains.
The point is that the Bible makes humans God's children - the point and sense of creation - and not an additional byproduct which is in itself despensible and unnecessary or even harmfull - which some "nature-focused" worldviews nowadays do claim. And the concept of Eruhini in Tokien's work is the same. Creation and even the Valar serve and find their ultimate purpuse in the emergence of Eru's Children.
Demon Kings seem an old concept to me, especially ancient Chinese mythology has plenty of those.
I think the Bible isn't about humans it is about God. By by-product what I mean is that by meditating and gaining understanding of Him the reader should then desire to align to Him and rediscover the ideal model for humanity. But by prioritising the human aspect and seeing it as a guide FOR us rather than a guide TO Him, it is possible to read it as human-focused and therefore fall into the initial trap of focusing on human over God. I guess all I mean is that it's not written to be a philosophical self-help book on living better and being a better version of yourself. That is a takeaway that should develop but it's not the author's primary intended purpose.
Yes, very good point about non-Western cultures
Perhaps I overstated the case. In the article I am thinking about specifically (but can't find again now), it wasn't so much that the writer was puzzled by this, but that he thought a great deal of explanation was needed for his puzzled readers. The Rabbi (I think he was a Rabbi) allowed for other reasons for people to be good, but seemed to think his audience (not necessarily Jews: the article was in a secular publication) might not. The whole article, in fact, was his attempt to explain to his readers how such people could be "good" without God.I don't get the puzzled part - do they really believe that God is the only reason for a person to be good? The people I know who say this, allow for other reasons.
Perhaps I overstated the case. In the article I am thinking about specifically (but can't find again now), it wasn't so much that the writer was puzzled by this, but that he thought a great deal of explanation was needed for his puzzled readers. The Rabbi (I think he was a Rabbi) allowed for other reasons for people to be good, but seemed to think his audience (not necessarily Jews: the article was in a secular publication) might not. The whole article, in fact, was his attempt to explain to his readers how such people could be "good" without God.