... on Legal but Erroneously Believed Illegal

Q

What are some things that many people think/believe are illegal but are actually legal?
https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-things-that-many-people-think-believe-are-illegal-but-are-actually-legal/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Thomist after starting with CSLewis

Answered just now

Publishing paper printed books from texts on a blog according to a general licence found on blog rather than a special exclusive contract with blogger, and publishing without having previously registered as a professional publisher.

However, in France, once you offer 100 examples of anything in print to the public, for free or for sale, it really is illegal to do so without sending one example to the National Library, and I think there are similar requirements in other jurisdictions.

But that you can obviously do even if you started printing in your home, made 7 batches of 15 examples, and found that the seventh batch made you pass 100 b y getting to 105.

... on Question whether Creationists are Insane (actually posed on quora)

Q

Are people who believe in creationism actually insane?
https://www.quora.com/Are-people-who-believe-in-creationism-actually-insane

I

Jake Warble

Answered 1h ago

Believing that “Belief in (insert anything here) = insane” feels kind of… ridiculous to me.

But not insane.

II

Aveek Sarkar

Answered 1h ago

It's who believes in evolution insane

III

ARq

Answer requested by Martin Reed

Alexander Hogg

Systems Engineer at Siemens (2016-present)

Answered 1h ago

Are you always this much of a nasty troll? DV.

Martin Reed

1h ago

It’s a genuine question. One of the most widely used criteria for testing insanity is testing for an ‘idee fixe’. This is an idea that the patient has stuck in his head which he adheres to despite any evidence presented to him which contradicts it. In order to explain any contradictions patients will often resort to the most complex and byzantine explanations as to how their idea is still true, even though it appears not to be. Thus, a patient might believe he is a horse, when asked to outrun a horse, he might claim that he is a lame horse, etc. Isn’t this just what creationists do? When presented with fossil evidence they claim that God put a false trail there as a test. So God lied (or made efforts to deceive). I’m not a Christian, but this seems to be somewhat sacrilegious to me; far less so than the idea that much of the bible is metaphorical. If it is to be taken literally, will astronauts shortly find God in his heaven above us - as it clearly states in the bible they should?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

4m ago

“One of the most widely used criteria for testing insanity is testing for an ‘idee fixe’. “

This is one reason why psychiatry cannot be taken as a correct and ethical science or practise.

“This is an idea that the patient has stuck in his head which he adheres to despite any evidence presented to him which contradicts it.”

Who would decide whether the evidence presented to someone contradicts his belief? He? Then noone is insane. The one prejudiced against the belief? Then everyone he examines is insane.

“ Thus, a patient might believe he is a horse, when asked to outrun a horse, he might claim that he is a lame horse, etc.”

Does it strike you as somewhat different believing one is a horse when being a man from having a theory of the universe?

In the case given, a look in the mirror or self observation of eating habits would quite convince any normal person he is not a horse.

This is very much more to the point than possibly “byzantine” or “intricate” character of explanations why the evidence is not really evidence against his being a horse. Actually, the example you gave, was a fairly straightforward one, not an intricate one.

That description by a psychiatrist totally misses the point.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1m ago

“ If it is to be taken literally, will astronauts shortly find God in his heaven above us - as it clearly states in the bible they should?”

Finding God would be beyond fix stars.

I have no problem - as yet - with fix stars being one light day away.

Also, getting up above that limit one has to pass pearly gates.

I don’t think an astronaut who hasn’t died will.

I also don’t think that an astronaut who has lived a bad life will.

But taking the Bible literally has always been done very much by Christians.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

“Isn’t this just what creationists do? When presented with fossil evidence they claim that God put a false trail there as a test.”

No.

Not the branch considered as “creation science” anyway.

We generally claim the fossil is probably from the Flood or (in my case) sometimes from just after the Flood.

IV

Bruce Doran

Answered 1h ago

No.

But they either lack intellects worthy of respect, are posturing to an uneducated audience for some cynical reason, or are members of that audience.

In the 21st Century, you cannot be intelligent, relevantly educated, and a believer in creationism.

Pick two.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

32m ago

I pick three.

Bruce Doran

20m ago

I am prepared to believe you are all three, in abundance, and with distinction.

What I should have said is relevantly educated.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

19m ago

I’d pick all three on that one too.

Bruce Doran

13m ago

If you’ve had a paper espousing creationist views accepted in Nature or Cell recently, I humbly defer.

Otherwise I think you’d find raw exposure to a group of people equipped with the education I describe to be an enlightening experience.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

Oh, you meant educated so as to be brain washed to accept scientific articles only from Evolutionist publications?

In that case I don’t pick your version of “educated”.

It is more like Evolution biassed scientists are shunning too much exposure to me.

I was asking Ilya Usoskin to test my model (not saying it was mine and not giving exact details, but frame work for diverse quantities on three parameters) on carbon 14 build up, and he had no time.

He is a physicist at Oulu University in Finland, presumably partly Russian and partly Finnish.

Bruce Doran

29m ago

I don't think that between the two of us we will be able to agree on which education is relevant and which brainwashing.

But just as you can use a television without believing in transistors, you can avail yourself of genetically engineered medicines even though you don't believe in evolution.

It’s just that your beliefs prevent you from being able to design those medications.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

“But just as you can use a television without believing in transistors, you can avail yourself of genetically engineered medicines even though you don't believe in evolution.”

I might not want genetically engineered medicines, and I might believe in the relevant parts of genetics.

Evolution is another fish, like pretending to know cats and dogs had common ancestors with each other, and further back this one and that of birds with some fish.

Bruce Doran

12h ago

The data reconstructing evolutionary trees is easily obtained and statistically irrefutable.

You should read about it. It's pretty clear cut.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

The data reconstructing evolutionary trees pins down common ancestor to cats and dogs to what species?

Miacis cognitus is one of the options, and cognitus is an overstatement. It is known from only part of a cranium.

As to irrefutable, the similarities are certainly so, but their putting it down to common ancestry is not.

V

Helge Kåre Fauskanger

Skeptic

Answered 1h ago

I should think actual insanity is very rare, even among creationists.

Typically, the real issue is that they have a strong ideological and emotional attachment to a certain religious tradition, and perceive evolutionary biology as an affront and an enabler of atheism.

To many, rejection of evolution is simply an identity marker in the subculture they belong to. They haven’t looked at the evidence for or against evolution. (In all fairness, there are probably also those who accept evolution as an identity marker if they want to cultivate a self-image as rational and science-minded people — again without looking much at the evidence for or against.)

Human beings are complex. Whether we subscribe to, or reject, a certain idea will often be influenced by other concerns than a sober evaluation of evidence — especially when “ideological” and “identity” issues are creeping into the picture.

Indeed, when a certain idea is all but universally accepted and generally held to be very well-proven, this very fact will apparently spawn a subculture who cherish their own contrariness; they pride themselves that they are not “sheeple” who go blindly along with the majority, but have seen through the lies!

Moon-landing deniers and creationists are in this respect products of the same psychological mechanisms.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

21m ago

“Moon-landing deniers and creationists are in this respect products of the same psychological mechanisms.”

There is an inverse one, involving not going blindly with a psychological mechanism. It is common in majorities where a strong sense of psychology is inculcated.

VI

ARq

Answer requested by Martin Reed

DS Martin

Once was a believer. Not now.

Answered 1h ago

A2A

Some may be, but most are surely not.

They are, however, deceived and misinformed. They also clearly don’t understand how to separate mythology from reality.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1h ago

Why should mythology be separated from reality in the first place?

What is your definition of mythology anyway?

DS Martin

56m ago

I use the definition I find in the dictionary. You can look that up as easily as I can; so I won’t present it to you here.

We separate myth from reality because we recognize that myths are not explanations based on observation and evidence. They represent human imaginative speculation.

Creationism is mythology because it’s not based on observation and evidence.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

37m ago

"I use the definition I find in the dictionary."

Some dictionary entries include fairly bad definitions through recent misuse of a word.

"You can look that up as easily as I can; so I won’t present it to you here."

I am not sure which one you mean.

1) A traditional story, typically involving supernatural beings or forces, which embodies and provides an explanation, aetiology, or justification for something such as the early history of a society, a religious belief or ritual, or a natural phenomenon.

No need to separate this from reality. Some of them may be real, others not (unless you have an atheistic prejudice against the supernatural).

2) As a mass noun: such stories collectively or as a genre.

This usage would of course contribute to give a less real ring to some myths by conflating them as "same genre" with unreal ones.

3) A widespread but untrue or erroneous story or belief; a widely held misconception; a misrepresentation of the truth. Also: something existing only in myth; a fictitious or imaginary person or thing.

This would clearly be sth to separate from reality, as it is by definition untrue. I would consider Evolutionism a "myth" in this sense, but this is a sense in which I refuse to use the word, due to deference to previous senses.

4) A person or thing held in awe or generally referred to with near reverential admiration on the basis of popularly repeated stories (whether real or fictitious).

5) A popular conception of a person or thing which exaggerates or idealizes the truth.

These two senses are clearly irrelevant to the usage you made.

Oxford English Dictionary
http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/124670?isAdvanced=false&result=1&rskey=ARnYHe#eid

"We separate myth from reality because we recognize that myths are not explanations based on observation and evidence."

No one definition of above gives any hint of this.

Even a misconception (sense 3) can be based on observation and evidence, and it can be an explanation which is a wrong explanation, but still an explanation.

Phlogiston theory was a misconception, it was an explanation which is arguably wrong, but it was based on observation and evidence, mingled with some mistakes in so basing it.

"They represent human imaginative speculation."

That all true and good scientific theories represent too.

"Creationism is mythology because it’s not based on observation and evidence."

If you mean the Bible account, from chapter 2 of Genesis to chapter 11 of Genesis, it is as any other human history based on human observation.

Believing it as accurate is based on evidence in text suggesting that the account had been kept unusually well preserved. Plus, for Christians, the theoloogical evidence of the true religion saying it is totally well preserved.

If you mean the modern science related writings of Creationists, i e Creation Science, like any other scientific theory it has its bases in observation and evidence.

So, I think I deconstructed about every ounce of your initial statement. If you disagree, please do defend what is left!

I mean, the phrase I contested. I obviously have no beef with first statement.

... on Gap Theory and 13.7 Billion Years

Q

According to Genesis 1:1-2 Could this mean that the earth pre-existed before the creation as recorded in the Bible?
https://www.quora.com/According-to-Genesis-1-1-2-Could-this-mean-that-the-earth-pre-existed-before-the-creation-as-recorded-in-the-Bible/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

This question previously had details. They are now in a comment.

Quora Question Details Bot

Aug 8

Science claims the universe was created 13.7 billion years ago, based on a lot of observable data. Could God have "triggered" the big bang to form the universe but had a separate creation for life 13.7 billion years later? Is it also possible that there are parallel creations of universes and "earths" happening now?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?

Answered just now

Answering the details in Q bot:

"Science claims the universe was created 13.7 billion years ago, based on a lot of observable data. Could God have "triggered" the big bang to form the universe but had a separate creation for life 13.7 billion years later? Is it also possible that there are parallel creations of universes and "earths" happening now?"

Now, one by one.

"Science claims the universe was created 13.7 billion years ago,"

No, certain scientists claim it. Science as such has no separate existence from scientists and not all scientists agree on this.

"based on a lot of observable data."

And also based on a certain ideology in interpreting the date, part of which is Heliocentrism.

"Could God have "triggered" the big bang to form the universe but had a separate creation for life 13.7 billion years later?"

Was God able to? Yes.

Is it probable God did so? No.

• One of the problems is, the creation days are not just about creation of life on earth, but also involve on day four creation of heavenly bodies - including those thought to be 13.7 billion light years away.
• One other problem is, the time a "Science believer" attributes to previous to the six days as situated by Bible chronology involves quite a lot of remains of biological life.
• The vastest problem is, the idea contradicts other words in the Bible, since Genesis 1 is not our only clue to how long there is a universe. See Mark 10:6.

"Is it also possible that there are parallel creations of universes and "earths" happening now?"

That is possible, but not testable. Unless you can find good biographic documentation of Susan Pevensie existing outside certain novels of C. S. Lewis and certain fan fictions based on those novels.

When St John on Patmos saw certain things, did he see them through time travel, through "going to another universe" (in which these things are more contemporary, and in which human actors could be present as beasts), or did things from the future project back to him and did he give them names emblematising them, like "beast"?

It could be any of the three. The first, a parallel universe in which for instance this or that world leader is not present in his human form but is turned into a beast of a certain number of heads and horns, like Eustace was turned into a dragon in the Narnian Universe, is of course theologically possible, but it could be as easy that St John simply saw the world leader along a mascot image in animal and monstruous form. By time travel or by things from our or an even later time projecting back, through God's omniscience and omnipotence.

Therefore, God creating new universes all the time is possible, but not likely.

Also, if God is doing it, it is not a solution to the question, since the objects 13.7 billion light years away, or supposedly so, are clearly in our universe. And the verse 1 clearly refers to heaven and earth in our universe.

Other answers

Anthony Zarrella

Lifelong Catholic and avid student of theology

Answered Jan 17

As I’ve said elsewhere, Genesis 1:1–2 could mean the earth pre-existed the Genesis 1 creation. But that’s hardly the most natural reading.

Imagine I write,

1 Two years ago, I built a house.

2 The house was a 1,000 sq. ft. ranch with red wooden siding.

Does “verse 2” imply that the house existed before I created it in “verse 1”? Of course not - it simply describes the state of what I created, subsequent to me creating it.

Likewise, the natural reading of Genesis 1:1–2 is, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. [When He had done so] the earth was without form and void…”

Now, as to whether this initial “created the heavens and the earth” could have happened long before some of the later “days” of creation - sure, in fact, it’s highly likely.

While I won’t say that it’s absurd to read the “six days of creation” as literal 24-hour days (because I do respect the faith of Young Earth Creationists, even though I’m not one), I do think it’s a reading that has deep problems - not least of which being the (now somewhat cliched) issue of, “Why would a ‘day’ be a solar day, if the sun wasn’t created until the third day?”

Most Christians, however (and certainly a vast majority of Catholics) don’t insist on reading Genesis 1 as scientific truth. It is true, and it is literally true - but it is “literally true” in the sense in which it is meant… which is as a communication of theological truths, not scientific cosmology.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

19m ago

You have two problems.

• You are denying factuality to the text, without clearly candidly admitting so, on a subterfuge;
• This subterfuge confuses what category would be holding the factual account. The real category is history, not science. And Genesis clearly is history.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

18m ago

This is however excellent:

Likewise, the natural reading of Genesis 1:1–2 is, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. [When He had done so] the earth was without form and void…”

Hans-Georg Lundahl

16m ago

// not least of which being the (now somewhat cliched) issue of, “Why would a ‘day’ be a solar day, if the sun wasn’t created until the third day?” //

Fourth.

This would leave at least latter half of day four, day five, day six and day seven on which God rested as solar days.

And the answer is obviously : by parallel.

The previous days have features that solar days have, God acting about the light He first created can easily explain these features, and they are enumerated in a series with the clearly solar days.

Edward Smith

studied at Colleges and Universities (1973)

Answered Oct 7

The verses are plain. Verse 1 simply says, “In the beginning, God created the jeavens and the earth.” No time given for either when, or how long it took.

Verse 2 says the creative days began after that. Again, no time given.

So the Universe and the Earth could well be as old as science’s best guess of 14b and 4.5b years respectively.

A careful reading of Genesis shows that each “day” was not 24hrs long and could be millennia in length.

The appearance of days, Sun, moon and stars were as written from the view of the Earth’s surface and describe the times the Earth began rotating on its axis and the clearing of the atmosphere allowing the heavens to be seen and the light to reach the Earth’s surface.

The order of the appearance of life from plant to Man agrees with science.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

"No time given for either when, or how long it took."

The words "in the beginning" would indicate the first instant of time, not a long sequence of it.

"Again, no time given."

Technically, correct. For this particular passage.

"So the Universe and the Earth could well be as old as science’s best guess of 14b and 4.5b years respectively."

You are forgetting quite a few things. Other Bible authorities, like Mark 10:6, for one.

"A careful reading of Genesis shows that each “day” was not 24hrs long"

Apart from fact that first day beginning before creation of light was somewhat longer, and sixth day ending already on evening was just 12 hours, this is rubbish.

"and could be millennia in length."

No, a millennium does not have an evening and a morning.

"The appearance of days, Sun, moon and stars were as written from the view of the Earth’s surface and describe the times the Earth began rotating on its axis and the clearing of the atmosphere allowing the heavens to be seen and the light to reach the Earth’s surface."

The text does not say they only appeared.

"The order of the appearance of life from plant to Man agrees with science."

If by "science" you mean evolutionism, there are several discrepancies, like birds on day five being created before any and all land animals on day six.

... on Celtic and Indo-European (quora)

Q

Can you give any examples of recognisable Indo-European roots in Celtic languages? Words with roots which are not later loanwords from other groups? I have read that Celtic languages are Indo-European, but their words look unfamiliar.
https://www.quora.com/Can-you-give-any-examples-of-recognisable-Indo-European-roots-in-Celtic-languages-Words-with-roots-which-are-not-later-loanwords-from-other-groups-I-have-read-that-Celtic-languages-are-Indo-European-but-their-words-look-unfamiliar/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I speak two langs, Latin and Germanic. In a few dialects.

Answered just now

aithir in Irish is thought to be same as pater
máithir is same as mater
bráithir is same as frater
siuir / fiuir is same as soror, or thought to be so

aon, daoi, trí, cáithir, cóig
sé, seacht, ocht, naoi, deich

However, clearly mac is NOT same as either filius or hyos, iníon is NOT the same as either filia or thygater.

Also, Latin filius and filia are not the same as hyos and thygater.

There are in fact a lot of words which are NOT common to Indo-European languages.

There are two explanations possible:

• there was a PIE language, but in each daughter language (the main ones, like Celtic, Italic, Greek, Germanic …) lots of words were exchanged, either through loan or through slang or when the language was taken over by people originally speaking sth else;
• there was NOT a single PIE language, the commonalities we see between the groups are due to mutual influence, since this was limited, some words are simply not IE, since not part of what this or that language took over from the other ones or offered to them.

Inis as in island is of course not one of those common to all IE languages, but could very well be the origin of the Latin insula (ínis-la, insla, insula).

... on Future of English

Q

How long will it take for the current English language to evolve into something average people in the future cannot understand? The way Old English is to us today?
https://www.quora.com/How-long-will-it-take-for-the-current-English-language-to-evolve-into-something-average-people-in-the-future-cannot-understand-The-way-Old-English-is-to-us-today/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I speak two langs, Latin and Germanic. In a few dialects.

Answered 1m ago

Between Old English and today, there is not just a long series of changes in word choice and sound system and even grammar.

There is also a shift - a quite drastic one - of writing tradition.

About 100 years after the Norman Conquest, Old English writing, based on Wessex dialect, ceased to be written. Latest entries in Anglo-Saxon Chronicle would mark the end.

This means that dialects are mostly no longer influenced by the Wessex written Anglo-Saxon dialect.

Then experiments in writing start to occur, some with spelling systems as incomprehensible if not more than Anglo-Saxon (Orrmulum). Then a basically taking over of French spelling (as it was pronounced then) occurred in most dialects and on top of that, there was a competition between West Midlands, Scots Lowlands, London dialects on which would become the standard language.

As soon as the new spelling system is used with London dialect, that English is comprehensible - because it is the tradition of writing which English is still preserving, with some modifications.

Whan that Aprille with his shoures soote …

This is comprehensible today, and as long as the English we write is preserved in writing, will remain comprehensible to people having learned to write and read English.

You can get a language as far from this English as Trigedasleng[1] - and who has learned to read English will still be able to do so, reshuffling of course some grammar, and influencing his oral Trigedasleng with bits and pieces of what we consider constitutive of correct English.

It is only if the written tradition breaks down and writing starts anew from Trigedasleng, that those having learned that cannot make head of tail of the English we use.

Footnotes

[1] Trigedasleng
http://the100.wikia.com/wiki/Trigedasleng

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

You spell “sis” in different ways:

“assist” for [sis … au]
“sister” for [sis]
“six” for [sis]

You don’t really use [sis … op] in writing. Lift is the old word.

Language of Your Site (quora)

Q

Can I have a website in more than one language? Is there a way I can, when uploading products on one of these languages, add the rest of the products to the other languages without entering each language to add products? The website WordPress.
https://www.quora.com/Can-I-have-a-website-in-more-than-one-language-Is-there-a-way-I-can-when-uploading-products-on-one-of-these-languages-add-the-rest-of-the-products-to-the-other-languages-without-entering-each-language-to-add-products-The-website-WordPress/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I speak two langs, Latin and Germanic. In a few dialects.

Answered just now

The wordpress will not select language of your content.

You select language of your interface, like if you want it to say “publish” or “publier”.

But the wordpress certainly does not select language on your content, you can change language as often as you like and in as many different languages as you like.

Same for blogger, presumably for livejournal and others as well.

One practical point, it can be useful for your readers to, if so, be able to search content in one of the languages by your making separate index posts for either language or by your adding labels to mark which language a post is in. On my main blog, I do both for English and for French:

New blog on the kid (eng)
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.fr/search/label/eng

New blog on the kid (fr)
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.fr/search/label/fr

Index XVII ENG : Pentecost to Assumption 2017
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2017/08/index-xvii-eng-pentecost-to-assumption.html

Index XVII FR : Pentécôte à Assomption 2017
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2017/08/index-xvii-fr-pentecote-assomption-2017.html

Some Tolkien Matters Worth Noting (quora)

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Some Tolkien Matters Worth Noting (quora) · New blog on the kid : Is Reading Tolkien Studying Magic? No.

Q

What is the origin of the language of elves that is invented by Tolkien?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-origin-of-the-language-of-elves-that-is-invented-by-Tolkien/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Fan of Tolkien as well as of his novels.

Answered 53m ago

“What is the origin of the language of elves that is invented by Tolkien?”

There are two of them, Quenya and Sindarin.

Their linguistic origin is Proto-Elvish, or Proto-Eldarin.

Their factual origin, as that of Proto-Eldarin, is the linguistic imagination of Tolkien.

In terms of phonotactics, Quenya owes some to Latin, Homeric Greek, Finnish, and Sindarin more to Welsh and Spanish.

But this is just one of the aspects, the vocabulary of both Q and S going back to mostly the same words in Proto-Eldarin, while the vocabulary of Greek and Finnish have little to do with each other and less (especially for Finnish) with Welsh and Spanish.

Upvoters

CharlieAnne Excell

Helge Kåre Fauskanger, sometimes Tolkienist, semi-fluent in Elvish*

Rully Armando

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1m ago

Takk, Fauskanger*!

Generøst, jeg glemte Telerin* og Nandorin* og flere …

Q

What is a good analysis of the novel "The Lord of the Rings" by J. R. R. Tolkien?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-a-good-analysis-of-the-novel-The-Lord-of-the-Rings-by-J-R-R-Tolkien

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Fan of Tolkien as well as of his novels.

Answered Sat

Originally Answered: What is the novel "The Lord of the Rings" by J. R. R. Tolkien about?

His own assessment of the theme : death.

More seriously, it involves reflections not only on dying but also on two or three types of deathlessness. One of them very evil. So, his assessment at least is correct it is the theme.

More directed to the plot, it is about a ring which gives invisibility and some degree of deathlessness or longevity, and which was forged by “Satan’s” second in command Sauron (more or less equivalent to Abaddon, Apollyon, Antichrist, though here a pre-Christian version and no human body).

It has come into the hands of very weak mortals, it is desired as a weapon against Sauron by very much more powerful mortals.

Will they succeed in getting it to the only place where it can be destroyed, Mount Doom, practically at the back door of Sauron? That is the plot in very rough sketch.

Other answer

Ernest W. Adams

Tolkien reader since 1968.

Answered Sat

Originally Answered: What is the novel "The Lord of the Rings" by J. R. R. Tolkien about?

It is about saving the world, and the price that must inevitably be paid to do it. It is about the damage that heroism does to a hero. It is about the notion that heroism is a matter of character and integrity rather than big muscles and super-powers.

Q

Is Lord of The Rings a beautiful gay love story that narrates the struggle of homosexual couples in society?
https://www.quora.com/Is-Lord-of-The-Rings-a-beautiful-gay-love-story-that-narrates-the-struggle-of-homosexual-couples-in-society

Ernest W. Adams

Tolkien reader since 1968.

Answered Sun

No. Frodo and Bilbo were both bachelors with no interest in romantic relationships at all. Sam was a straight hobbit who had 13 children with his wife Rose Cotton.



There is no homosexuality in Tolkien’s universe at all. There are many close male friendships, however, which today everyone regards with suspicion because we are sex-obsessed.

Own answer

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Fan of Tolkien as well as of his novels.

Answered just now

Tolkien’s friend C. S. Lewis wrote a novel - That Hideous Strength - in which Merlin, come to our times, expresses extreme horror at the use of contraceptives in what would otherwise be a heterosexual marriage.

Since CSL himself accepted the 1930 Lambeth Conference, I think, or partly, though was against a couple in his acquaintances opting for no children at all, he presumably took the stricter view as the historically Christian one for his character from his Catholic friend.

Two more answers

Helge Kåre Fauskanger

sometimes Tolkienist, semi-fluent in Elvish*

Answered 16h ago

No, it is not. Of course you can always read something into the story if that somehow makes you happier, but we can be very certain that Tolkien never meant Frodo and Sam to be even the slightest bit gay.

They certainly come close to one another during their grueling quest, and Sam certainly loves Frodo as a friend and “master”, but that is all. Tolkien later has Sam marrying Rose and fathering a whole bunch of kids. The character is not meant to be gay. Tolkien would surely have found the very idea upsetting. We are talking about a devout Catholic born in the 19th century here.

Tolkien was not like (say) Anne Rice, who discovered that her initial vampire novel Interview with the Vampire was popular among American gays. Apparently the gay community appreciated the relationship between Louis and Lestat and saw some “homoeroticism” there, though it was not at all that evident in the initial novel. But Ms Rice got the message loud and clear and started producing sequel after sequel aimed at this audience, erotic attraction between same-sex characters soon becoming a running and eventually tired cliché. I like to believe that I am not homophobic in any way, but after a while I started to think: Can’t we have some instances where people who lust for one another are actually of opposite genders — you know, just for the sake of variation, Ms Rice?

But I’m pretty darn sure Tolkien would never have gone there, even if gay people were somehow demonstrated to be the main audience for high fantasy.

Ionut Sabau

lives in Oradea, Romania

Answered 3h ago

No.

Try X-men, if that’s your cup of tea. That’s way closer to what you’re trying to suggest. Not so much a love story, but it basically touches upon the struggles of “special” people in modern society.

Q

Why is it called 'Lord of the Rings' when there is only one ring in the story?
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-it-called-Lord-of-the-Rings-when-there-is-only-one-ring-in-the-story/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Fan of Tolkien as well as of his novels.

Answered just now

There is one ring throughout the story, but there are hints of the three and seven and nine rings too.

Gandalf, Elrond and Galadriel carry the three elven rings, not made by Sauron, but which could be dominated by his ring if he came to use it, Gandalf not being an elf and having his from Cirdan who was.

The seven rings are those given to dwarfs to ensnare them in greed, and are the matter of The Hobbit.

The nine rings were given to men, producing the ringwraiths. All nine of them are deathless evils, quasi corpses animated by demons. They are also Sauron’s crew to get back his one ring. They and Sauron are loosely based on Koshchey the Deathless.

Q

Is Middle Earth in The Lord of The Rings a metaphor for China the "central country"?
https://www.quora.com/Is-Middle-Earth-in-The-Lord-of-The-Rings-a-metaphor-for-China-the-central-country/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Fan of Tolkien as well as of his novels.

Answered 2h ago

No.

Middle Earth is not a metaphor, but a hypothesis, the places shown in stories are on the west of this continent, which equates to Eurasia with Africa.

In the scenario given, this was the Middle of the Earth (of Arda) back when Earth was a disc. Two other continents or near such are mentioned:

• Valinor which was on the West rim and which was removed when Earth became a globe.
• Númenor which was a very large island, between Middle-Earth and Valinor, which sunk.

In “the Third Age” Earth is already a globe, Middle-Earth is the only known continent left, and Mediterranean has not yet appeared to separate Africa from Europe.

Q

What do you think life would be like on Earth, if Adam and Eve would not have rebelled against God in the Garden of Eden?
https://www.quora.com/What-do-you-think-life-would-be-like-on-Earth-if-Adam-and-Eve-would-not-have-rebelled-against-God-in-the-Garden-of-Eden/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?

Answered just now

Tolkien invented the Elves to answer the question.

Note, his Eldar and the Elves of folklore are not identic, he made a very peculiar interpretation of the theme.

They are his “unfallen race”.

Q

Is there any practice of alchemy in Tolkien's world?
https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-practice-of-alchemy-in-Tolkiens-world/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Fan of Tolkien as well as of his novels.

Answered just now

Not really.

Two “wizards” are both angelic but temporarily corporate beings, one of them, staying good, is practising what could be considered as “fire magic” as well as exorcism, the other is more into genetic engineering than into alchemy.

I have spoken of Gandalf and Saruman.

Rully Armando

13m ago

at the moment Gandalf open the doors of Durin, shall we consider that some spells combine with alchemy being made by elves in that entrance?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

Possibly.

But we could note that similar effects are clearly within our technological reach now.

Obviously, the word “mellon” would have to be pronounced exactly right, not sth the computer work would take as “mallon” or “millun”.*

If this is “alchemy”, it is at least offstage, we would be seeing results of it, not the process itself.

note

* Here a man is pronouncing "John Lennox" and the computer for subtitles is getting "John Linux":

Q

What are some weak points of Tolkien's world-building?
https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-weak-points-of-Tolkiens-world-building

This question previously had details. They are now in a comment.

Quora Question Details Bot

Aug 8

Some areas do seem to be weaker than others -- past the obvious disperancies inherent to such a task like the Balrogs' nature, the origin of Orcs or the backgroung of Celeborn. What about geology? Economy? The sociology of the peoples of Middle Earth? Technological and philosophical advancements?

Other answer

with my comment:

Glen Tarr

Answered Jan 13, 2016

One difficulty I’ve come across is Tolkien’s idea that Middle Earth is simply our earth at an earlier time. How’s that supposed to work, given that what we call “Venus” is actually some guy with a shiny rock in a flying boat?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

Yes, that would be the major difficulty.

We do know Venus is a rocky planet much larger than any boat.

Poetically it makes sense, in a way, but the Anglo-Saxon original for it “eala earendel, engla beorhtast” has none of this difficulty, since Venus as a rocky planet could very well have an angelic mover.

The Norse myth where Venus is Örvendel’s toe would of course make even less sense.

But poetically, Tolkien mixes these references.

Own answer

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Fan of Tolkien as well as of his novels.

Answered just now

"Some areas do seem to be weaker than others -- past the obvious disperancies inherent to such a task like the Balrogs' nature, the origin of Orcs or the backgroung of Celeborn."

Balrog's nature? Incarnate demons.

Origin of orcs? "Rebooted" and thereby depraved elves.

Background of Celeborn? It seems Tolkien reworked that, but reworking doesn't make either version weak.

"What about geology?"

Probably Tolkien's favourite in a way.

Silmarillion gives scenario which reboot Geologic column in Cuvier like catastrophism.

"Economy?"

It would seem Tolkien understood very well normal relations between agriculture and trade and how it could be rebooted for the worse by large scale capitalism.

"The sociology of the peoples of Middle Earth?"

Fairly well thought through.

There is a clear difference between Gondor, The Shire and Bree, Rohan, the Dunlendings, and also elven sociologies.

Taxation is not spelled out, but one can presume it was sth on Medieval lines:

Answering GRRM on JRRT's character Aragorn
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2014/06/answering-grrm-on-jrrts-character.html

"Technological and philosophical advancements?"

Technological :

The Hobbits are good at things like comforts in the house (pre-inventing several house commodities from Victorian rural era).

The Orcs are excellent at military and "psychiatric"/torturewise technology.

Philosophical :

The point is, religion was revealed, and philosophical advancement, except on details of minute understanding, as made by elves, was not a thing, except a sham thing, like the alternative Satanist religion of Morgoth (especially as preached by Sauron).

* Helge Kåre Fauskanger is the site owner for this jewel of Tolkien linguistics:

Ardalambion
https://folk.uib.no/hnohf/

If you want to know about Telerin or Nandorin, Doriathrin or Ilkorin, this is your site. As to Quenya and Sindarin he has rivals, some say his view of Quenya grammar needs correction from one of the later books on the matter. However, he translated all of the Johannine corpus to Quenya. Gospel, three Epistles and Apocalypse. When he is not writing on Tolkien matters or detective novels of his own, he is a Bible translator./HGL