God can write straight with crooked lines.

[MG 2.0]

In other words, the opposite of the triteness imposed with the 'crooked made straight' OP argument.

MG has to keep things vague and non specific because the details pin him down and refutes his axiom.

I don't think there has been said to show this to be demonstrably true. As it is, I think my contributions/arguments have held up pretty well while at the same time appreciating your Tolkien interjections.

Some might have called it a derail of sorts, but I think it added/adds to the overall discussion. In fact, your contributions have possibly helped clarify my original OP presentation that God can write straight with crooked lines.

Granted, I've alluded to the possibility/fact that this may all fit with elements of LDS theology. Sorites Paradox included.

I can see where at this point it might be a United Front coming at me from all directions though. It wouldn't be the first time. As I've said many times now over the years..."The stakes are high, aren't they?"

God or no God hangs in the balance on some of these discussions. I can NEVER prove anything. I can only give reasons for the faith that is in me while respecting the right of others to disagree.

It usually comes to this point in any deeper discussion.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

The Tolkien discussion on this thread has been interesting, especially the idea that his 'created world' refuses any “moral shortcut” where belief dissolves tragedy, failure, or consequence. That actually feels very close to what the thread title is getting at, that is, if God “writes straight with crooked lines,” then whatever is happening with spiritual witnesses, certainty, and providence cannot be a cheap escape from the real moral costs of our choices.

What?! No, the OP implied nothing at all like that, and it was never mentioned by the OP prior to the Tolkien discussion. Mentalgymnastics are hard at work with this nonsensical attempt.

Agreed. The whole game was a contrived attempt to pretend to care about others opinions before springing whatever “truth” MG had to offer.

[Philo Sofee]

Interesting, but no, since Tolkien never said any of that. God caused Gollum to save Frodo is never an explanation anywhere in anything Tolkien wrote published or unpublished. He also never wrote that Frodo's failure was planned or that he was given an impossible command. There was no command, Frodo volunteered to take the ring to Mount Doom, there is nothing or no one who commanded he destroy it also. There is no guarantee that faithfulness will succeed, as Elrond noted in the council, no one could see what might happen. With that even failure might actually matter, it's still open. Grace may arrive, they just didn't know if it would, nor did they say it would to anyone, in fact, quite the opposite. We don't know what will happen. There was no God saving short cut anywhere in the entire adventure.

One further question, if you'll indulge me, or treat it as rhetorical if you prefer:

Is there a way in which I could possibly have got it more wrong than I did?

LOL! Oh calm down.....it's not a right vs wrong situation. We are all exploring here! And is it ever fun to finally be able to do with religious subjects instead of worrying about conforming to something invented called "true doctrine" or some such.....

[MG 2.0]

What?! No, the OP implied nothing at all like that, and it was never mentioned by the OP prior to the Tolkien discussion. Mentalgymnastics are hard at work with this nonsensical attempt.

Agreed. The whole game was a contrived attempt to pretend to care about others opinions before springing whatever “truth” MG had to offer.

I think that at some point in a long conversation it's okay to express one's own beliefs and take a stand. On the whole, I think the thread stayed rather innocuous and ecumenical when it came to any one particular belief system.

You can't fault me for wanting to express the fact that I believe LDS beliefs dovetail with some of the things we've been talking about.

But I can leave it at that!

It's not like I'm going to walk away and go, "Well, that thread blew me away!"

Although, I guess that could happen.

For the most part, it's been quite enjoyable to share in a civil sort of fashion for so many pages without taking 'sides'. I think on the whole others might agree. As it is, I can go ahead and bow out if others would like me to so that the discussion could on in a more or less secular fashion.

I would be okay with that at this point.

Malkie can then have his say without feeling like he's breaking any rules. :lol

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

In other words, the opposite of the triteness imposed with the 'crooked made straight' OP argument.

MG has to keep things vague and non specific because the details pin him down and refutes his axiom. He won't let that happen. It is why Tolkien is also such a wrench in his gears. Tolkien doesn't care about testimony and truthfulness of a claim, or burning bosoms, he cares about living a moral life in faithfulness no matter what the cost and consequences. At least that is how I understand it.

Agreed.

[MG 2.0]

MG has to keep things vague and non specific because the details pin him down and refutes his axiom. He won't let that happen. It is why Tolkien is also such a wrench in his gears. Tolkien doesn't care about testimony and truthfulness of a claim, or burning bosoms, he cares about living a moral life in faithfulness no matter what the cost and consequences. At least that is how I understand it.

Agreed.

I see you've fallen in line with another poster. Pick someone's post and say "Agreed!"

And that's enough to settle it all for the critics. I've seen that over and over again.

Dang. I can't do that. I'm at a disadvantage! Gosh darn.

All I can say is, "I agree with myself!" But that sounds rather pretentious, right?

Like I've said, we've reached 'that point'. Let's see where it goes. One more grain of sand makes what?

I think something good (straight) can come out of a thread that may go off a little crooked. If God can do it, so can we, right?

When it is suggested above that I have ulterior motives other than good discussion I become a bit gunshy.

Anyway I'll wait to see what comes next.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

One further question, if you'll indulge me, or treat it as rhetorical if you prefer:

Is there a way in which I could possibly have got it more wrong than I did?

LOL! Oh calm down.....it's not a right vs wrong situation. We are all exploring here! And is it ever fun to finally be able to do with religious subjects instead of worrying about conforming to something invented called "true doctrine" or some such.....

Wow, thanks, Philo.

I was beginning to wonder if/how I would make it through the rest of the year after such a catastrophic start. Taking deep breaths and trying not to hyperventilate ...

[Limnor]

Agreed.

I see you've fallen in line with another poster. Pick someone's post and say "Agreed!"

And that's enough to settle it all for the critics. I've seen that over and over again.

Dang. I can't do that. I'm at a disadvantage! Gosh darn.

All I can say is, "I agree with myself!" But that sounds rather pretentious, right?

Like I've said, we've reached 'that point'. Let's see where it goes. One more grain of sand makes what?

I think something good (straight) can come out of a thread that may go off a little crooked. If God can do it, so can we, right?

When it is suggested above that I have ulterior motives other than good discussion I become a bit gunshy.

Anyway I'll wait to see what comes next.

Regards,
MG

I don’t think anyone is treating agreement as a way to settle anything. In my case, I was agreeing because the explanation clarified how the epistemology works. If we’ve reached “that point,” I’m fine seeing where it goes, as long as we keep making assumptions clearer rather than leaning harder on metaphors.

[Philo Sofee]

MG has to keep things vague and non specific because the details pin him down and refutes his axiom.

I don't think there has been said to show this to be demonstrably true. As it is, I think my contributions/arguments have held up pretty well while at the same time appreciating your Tolkien interjections.

Some might have called it a derail of sorts, but I think it added/adds to the overall discussion. In fact, your contributions have possibly helped clarify my original OP presentation that God can write straight with crooked lines.

Granted, I've alluded to the possibility/fact that this may all fit with elements of LDS theology. Sorites Paradox included.

I can see where at this point it might be a United Front coming at me from all directions though. It wouldn't be the first time. As I've said many times now over the years..."The stakes are high, aren't they?"

God or no God hangs in the balance on some of these discussions. I can NEVER prove anything. I can only give reasons for the faith that is in me while respecting the right of others to disagree.

It usually comes to this point in any deeper discussion.

Regards,
MG

I don’t think the question here is God or no God. What I’ve found valuable in Tolkien is that he explores how moral responsibility operates even when metaphysical certainty is absent or unresolved. That seems to create space for faith without requiring moral shortcuts.

[Gadianton]

Frodo wasn’t commanded to destroy the Ring; he freely chose to bear it as far as he could, and Tolkien is careful to judge him by faithfulness, not by outcome. There wasn't a law given with a design failure of a task. It was a burden freely accepted, a journey without guarantees, and it is a task beyond finite strength without being a trick. In the Letters Tolkien said Frodo was morally complete and forgiven since his failure does not negate his faithfulness. He got the ring to Mount Doom, and from his earlier gift of mercy letting Gollum live, that was how the ring was destroyed. No one knew how it would go, or that it even would succeed. There was no lying command of destroy the ring. Even the company of 9 was volunteers, not commandments for them. And they could leave the Fellowship at any time they wanted. So with the false premise, I don't think your argument holds. There is no 5D chess being played here, since there was no plan requiring failure so that a higher order could intervene. No higher order intervened in any manner. Gollum did. At least that is how the Tolkien set up was crafted.

It's about time someone on this forum made the bolded accusation correctly. As I understand it, it was a counsel of wisest who decided the imperative "destroy the ring". I figured, well, let's see if we can make this more religious by making it a commandment of some form. At that point, I didn't realize there is a God, Eru, and I figured maybe this was a close approximation for fantasy. Not so. Because there is a God available, such an imperative could be issued or inspired by Eru, yet codified moral law and divine commands and revelation are totally lacking. You did explain the music. This seems like common-sense morality based on empathy and community participation. The decision to destroy the ring was made by fallible individuals on their own reasoning. So I agree with you, there does not appear to be any switcharoo going on. "thou shalt not kill" -- "better kill that guy over there, though -- trust me, I play 5d chess".

I do maintain there is 5d chess in the way God stepped in and saved the plan. I think there is the parable of the penny jar and bicycle here also. However, is God writing straight with crooked lines? Well, the way this phrase has been interpreted so far by both critics and MG, I'd say no.