Yes, well presumably the persons getting Married in A Church would be the Elect, wouldn't they
?
Yes, but they are partaking of common grace--the marriage would be just as valid if contracted in a courthouse before the clerk of the court.
You'll let me know how that goes when you find some evidence of that, won't you
.
Would a Roman Catholic recognize sacred things apart from the seven sacraments? Certainly--pilgrimages, acts of mercy, life itself are all considered to be sacred, yet none of them necessarily involve sacraments. Again, sacred=holy. Sacraments may be holy, but they are not the only holy things.
TBG
Whereof we speak, thereof we cannot be silent.
If God did not exist, we would be unable to invent Him.
Posted : January 3, 2010 1:46 pm
Wagga, Thank you for clarifying your view.
Now I will agree that the urbanization of man after the fall could contribute to man's sinful state, mostly from the resulting hierarchy that would follow.
But as you correctly quoted scripture about God cursing the ground for Adam's sake, I would still argue about agriculture. I recall a sermon where the pastor asked the question, "what happens when people have nothing to do?" They have a tendency to think up things to do. Usually getting into trouble. Having volunteered with a youth organization for some years I can tell you the easiest way to see boys get into trouble is to leave them too much free time.
Simply put, God no longer allowed Adam and Eve the free time they had with the easy chores given them in the garden for their own good. Not that humanity still did not tend to make use of their new sinful nature. We see the scripture before the flood attesting to "every thought of man was evil".
GB, about both "primitives", and "advanced" and their recources, are we making this agreeing thing a habit?
As for the sin of man causing the fall of nature, well I must look up the verse about how not only were Adam, and Eve vegitarians, but so were all the animals. Now we also know that Noah was given permission by God to eat meat after the flood. Why? Unless sin had effected him to such a degree that he was feeling the desire. And if that were the case would it not follow that animals would also be effected? We know from observation that many "carnivorse" eat vegitation at times. Even the fearsome T-Rex "Sue" was found with fossilized vegitation in hert gut. Add to this, many animals with "canine" teeth, thought to be stricktly for meat are vegitarian.
Getting late. Night all.
Posted : January 3, 2010 4:24 pm
Puddleglum:
GB, about both "primitives", and "advanced" and their recources, are we making this agreeing thing a habit?
It's been known to happen. Heck, even TBG and I agree once in a while 
.
GB 
"Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence" -- Carl Sagan
Posted : January 3, 2010 9:09 pm
But as you correctly quoted scripture about God cursing the ground for Adam's sake, I would still argue about agriculture. I recall a sermon where the pastor asked the question, "what happens when people have nothing to do?" They have a tendency to think up things to do. Usually getting into trouble. Having volunteered with a youth organization for some years I can tell you the easiest way to see boys get into trouble is to leave them too much free time.
Simply put, God no longer allowed Adam and Eve the free time they had with the easy chores given them in the garden for their own good. Not that humanity still did not tend to make use of their new sinful nature. We see the scripture before the flood attesting to "every thought of man was evil".
That is just it, though. Everyone has to be kept busy, if they are to lead a worthwhile and happy life, not only young boys. The same applies to elders at retiring age and the unemployed, as well as the rest of the community. So you have made an excellent point, Puddleglum (don't faint ). We are told that hunters and gatherers are the ones who spend much of their lives getting food, in particular, the women, who do much of the gathering. If there is plenty of food around to gather, they might not have to work all that hard. Hunters tend to do so in packs every so often, and obviously if Adam was on his own, with plenty of other food around, and plenty of fish as well, he might not have had to do much hunting.
But I still argue that agriculture, once it commences, has a decided impact on the environment. Not only do people tend to stay put, so they can benefit from their efforts, even as early as 3000 BC Sumerians and Egyptians had worked out the benefits of irrigation to ensure an adequate and reliable supply of water. Whilst riverbanks or savanna country might be natural places for crop-growing, eventually agriculture impacts on forests as man expands his activities. The occasional tree that was chopped down to make a canoe to go fishing is joined by others to build houses, and to make more land available to farmers, and without at least some forest cover, keeping the soil down, the land becomes more fragile.
Whilst even subsistence farmers work extremely hard themselves, in a good season they can still supply a surplus of food, which leaves others with free time to pursue other activities. Sewing was mentioned in Genesis in connection with the fall. Construction was around the corner. Cain and Abel happened along with their own particular stories to ram home what I mean about agriculture with the old, old rivalry between herding and crop farming. Jubal was mentioned in connection with music, though others certainly got into mischief.
Currently I am reading the Talmud, which, so far, is what you might call extra material to explain the old Genesis tales of Cain and Abel, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph and Moses, plus baddies like Nimrod. This section is followed by Rabbinical commentary on these tales for extra explanation. At first I thought I might have found there how Lilith got into the picture, when it was mentioned on the old NarniaWeb site, but, so far, have not seen any mention about her. The Talmud emphasizes that those who want to study God's word must also have a trade, so that they can earn a living whilst they study. Also, that when man becomes corrupt, so does the land. When Cain kills his brother, he is told: "Cursed be thou from the ground which sped to swallow up thy brother's blood. No longer shall it give its strength to thee and answer to thy efforts". Talmud p. 15. I'm sure that this is in Genesis as well.
As for the sin of man causing the fall of nature, well I must look up the verse about how not only were Adam, and Eve vegitarians, but so were all the animals.
There is much background info, like the story of how Abraham realised the uselessness of idolatry, and there was only one God is in the Talmud, in a much more extensive form, but, so far, I haven't found anything either there or in Genesis, itself, which suggests that all animals as well as Adam were vegetarians, whatever they did on the Ark. Noah is mentioned, but not expanded upon to any extent, and one is supposed to go back to Genesis at that point. In the Talmud version, God made Adam a wonderful coat of skins, which was passed down to his descendants like Enoch, Methuselah and Noah. This coat was later fought over, with Nimrod the Mighty Hunter getting hold of it eventually.
A fun little marriage question for all who believe that marriage is a sacrament of the church and for church members, but of course anyone can address the question. That's what makes it fun!
Do you believe that non-Christians who marry are still considered to be living in sin, on the grounds that only a church marriage by church members counts?
What an interesting question! I would have thought that if Christians didn't like to see the marriages of people of other faiths as legitimate, that those others might feel just as entitled not to recognise the validity of Christian marriage, whether or not it is considered a sacrament. I think that is where the appropriate State register of Births, Deaths and Marriages having an entry noting the marriage, and issuing the appropriate certificate would generally be the final arbiter on validity on marriage. Though any such recognition becomes unstuck when not even State legislature will recognise the validity of bigamous or polygamous marriages such as are accepted and performed in Islam. I would also ask: What is the status of Mixed marriages within Christianity? Or is that also too political?
Here is a thought about the sacredness of marriage and practicalities: Back in 1788 and for quite a while afterwards, Church of England (Anglican) was the state religion in Australia, perforce. At first there weren't any Roman Catholic priests or other Protestant clergy, just Richard Johnston, or later on, the likes of Samuel Marsden, the so-called Whipping parson. It was either get married in the Anglican church or live de facto until someone more suitable to one's taste turned up. Now which marriages would be considered sacraments? Those who took up the offer, even though they weren't Anglicans? Would people still be living in sin because they had to otherwise wait to get the priest of their choice to officiate? And does anyone think that such people should be criticized for doing so?
Back in Scotland, people who married outside their church, such as Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) marrying Church of England, or Catholic marrying a Protestant, were said to have formed 'irregular marriages'. Why were such marriages considered 'irregular', even when the marriage was performed in a church where it might be considered a sacrament?
Posted : January 4, 2010 8:51 am
Wagga, Got pizza cooking so I can only shoot a quick verse to you about Adam and the animals eating plants. Gen. 1:29-30. Hope to get on this thing later.
Posted : January 4, 2010 11:22 am
Puddleglum, I don't think Genesis 1:29-30 was what wagga was asking about. Yes, God gave Adam and Eve every green plant for food -- before the Fall.
The question I think is being asked -- wagga, jump in if I've got it wrong -- is a compound question i.e. there are two questions.
One, did meat-eating begin with Noah-after-the-Flood? Please cite verse, anyone.
Two, if no specific verse is found to state that Noah was the first meat-eater (for example, a verse is found that states or even implies that Noah ate meat but the verse does not specifically state that he is the first meat-eater), is it impossible, possible, probable, or almost certain that people between Fallen Adam and the-day-Noah-boarded-the-Ark ate meat? There are a couple of suggestions -- not proof, but suggestions, based on common sense -- that people probably ate meat.
One, Genesis 3:21 states that God made clothes for Adam and Eve from animal skins. It doesn't say what animal, but many animals that are good for skins are also good for food: deer, bear, cow, buffalo, horse, antelope, rabbit, beaver, etc. (Skunk, not so much, though I haven't actually tried it.) So when the clothes were made from their skins, were the carcasses left to rot? That strikes me as wasteful, and I don't think God wastes things. Or maybe at minimum the other animals were allowed to eat the carcasses, but that just brings up the question of why man wouldn't eat the meat when everyone else would.
Two, the Flood came about because Man sinned so much that God destroyed all life on earth except the life inside Noah's Ark. While we still haven't clarified whether meat-eating was a sin, or at least a concession -- Paul argued very forcefully that meat-eating isn't a sin for the Christian, though he had not seen our factory-styled farms -- it would be a strange world of evildoers that would commit every other sin under the sun but not eating meat.
...
In answer to wagga's other question, Cyrus Scofield published a reference Bible heavily annotated with his interpretations of, well, everything in it. He is noted for bringing the concept of Dispensationalism to the general public. Dispensationalism is based in part on a belief that the first three chapters of Revelation are not just letters to specific churches, but are also descriptions of redemptive history and the behavior of the righteous during these intervals. Each dispensation is said to be bound by a covenant between God and man. Man breaks covenant after covenant, prompting God to offer yet another covenant. Dispensationalists believe we are living in the sixth covenant and are teetering close to the edge of the seventh, which is eternal. Rapturists and millennialists are not interchangeable with dispensationalists, but they often have one or two major teachings in common. Nowadays the Scofield Bible is harder to find, so many dispensationalists have a Ryrie Bible instead. If you do find a Scofield, it's a collector's item and a treasure trove of Dispensational beliefs.
It's back! My humongous [technical term] study of What's behind "Left Behind" and random other stuff.
The Upper Room | Sponsor a child | Genealogy of Jesus | Same TOM of Toon Zone
Posted : January 4, 2010 12:20 pm
One, did meat-eating begin with Noah-after-the-Flood? Please cite verse.
What about Genesis 9:3-4?
Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat [food] for you: even as the green herb have I given you all things. But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
"Even as the green herb..." refers to Genesis 1:29. I think treating "moving thing" as food is new!
About the Pharisees and Sabbath regulations...
The Mishnah, the written codification of the oral tradition, lists "forty less one" (Shabbat VII.2) categories of work prohibited on the Sabbath. Some of them came directly from the work of the tabernacle itself, e.g., spinning, warping, sewing, and dyeing. Other areas included the agricultural activities implied in the use of a finished product, such as linen cloth. These would include sowing, plowing, reaping, binding sheaves, and winnowing. These prohibitions would cover activities in growing the plants from which they obtained fibers for the linen cloth.
From these thirty-nine categories, well established by the time of Jesus, came the thousands of specific halachah, or specific rules governing each situation and contingency.
Here's the source. And you can find out more info on it here. The Pharisees had hundreds of man-made Sabbath regulations in Jesus' day. It was "the tradition of the elders"... 
EDIT
Cyrus Scofield published a reference Bible heavily annotated with his interpretations of, well, everything in it. He is noted for bringing the concept of Dispensationalism to the general public. ... Nowadays the Scofield Bible is harder to find, so many dispensationalists have a Ryrie Bible instead. If you do find a Scofield, it's a collector's item and a treasure trove of Dispensational beliefs.
I know all about Scofield's dispensationalism and I agree with most of it. But the Scofield Bible isn't that hard to find! 
They sell a few copies at my local Barnes and Noble. And they're recent editions, too.
Posted : January 4, 2010 12:35 pm
Here's the source. And you can find out more info on it here. The Pharisees had hundreds of man-made Sabbath regulations in Jesus' day. It was "the tradition of the elders"...
That's odd. Because, so far, in my reading of this actual copy of the Talmud, (selections translated from the original by H. Polano. Lond., Warne, 1969) I haven't been able to find even one such extra rule in the Talmud, which is supposedly based on 'the tradition of the elders'. Whatever the Pharisees got up to it isn't in this copy of the Talmud, the original compiling of which as I have already pointed out, was done after the 70 AD demolition of the Jewish temple at Jerusalem, by the likes of Rabbi Hillel and Rabbi Gemaliel. So far, I've read the Biblical History (Mishna) bit, and am just starting on the second part.
I did have a look at your source, but it was a Christian Bible reading one, not a Talmudic one. I'm sure there is one such on Internet and I mean to check it out, too. 
I'd like to see first what is actually in "the tradition of the elders" before I commented further on the Pharisees, who were known for doing things by the letter of what laws there were already in the Torah, especially in the detailed laws of Leviticus, whilst the spirit was sadly lacking. Like their attitude to people in a lower class than themselves or to such as the Woman taken in adultery. Or how they paid their tithes.
Puddleglum, I don't think Genesis 1:29-30 was what wagga was asking about. Yes, God gave Adam and Eve every green plant for food -- before the Fall.
The question I think is being asked -- wagga, jump in if I've got it wrong -- is a compound question i.e. there are two questions.
One, did meat-eating begin with Noah-after-the-Flood? Please cite verse, anyone.
Two, if no specific verse is found to state that Noah was the first meat-eater (for example, a verse is found that states or even implies that Noah ate meat but the verse does not specifically state that he is the first meat-eater), is it impossible, possible, probable, or almost certain that people between Fallen Adam and the-day-Noah-boarded-the-Ark ate meat? There are a couple of suggestions -- not proof, but suggestions, based on common sense -- that people probably ate meat.
I did look at Gen 1:29-30, and yes, in the KJV version it says in verse 29: I have given you every herb, bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. That is identical to what the Hebrew Scriptures say. The Douay version is slightly different, changing to you it shall be for meat to 'to be your meat'. So it shouldn't have been necessary at that point for Adam to go a-hunting, now was it?
I'm sure that after the Fall, of course people ate meat. There is the story of Cain and Abel for starters. According to Gen 4: 2 Abel was a shepherd. It is for meat, sheepskins and wool that sheep are usually kept, though, like goats, milk and milk products are also possible. 
In Gen 4: 17, we find that Cain's son Enoch had built a city, and later on, in such cities, all manner of wickednesses were practised so I expect they also would eat meat if they could get it, permissible or not.
After the flood, we have Nimrod the Mighty hunter, though unlike the Talmud, the Bible doesn't say much about him. And by the time of Jacob and Esau and the goat-dressed-up-as-game stunt Jacob pulled on Isaac, I'd say that meat-eating was well entrenched. That is, even if meat refers only to red meat, obtained from animals like sheep, cattle or goats and not fish or birds which are usually classed as white meat.
Otherwise I agree with you, TOM, about the meat-eating. Also, I doubt that a Scofield Bible would be so easily available in Australian bookshops, and don't think we have a Barnes & Noble here yet.
Posted : January 4, 2010 1:26 pm
Hum, Hum, Hum... new Forums, I see! I had not been about in a long while and I saw that my account had been deleted, I at least suppose that the Forums are new, or perhaps my account was simply deleted. 
Anyhow, I thought I would come back with a few questions, on Christianity, of course! 
I am sorry if I am interrupting in the middle of a Hot Debate, I just saw that the thread was a bit down on the list and I thought I might bump it up for some discussion!
The Punishment of Sin.
All Christians, I believe, admit up to that God created the world, and everything within it. I have glanced over Calvinism, and basically, it seems they believe that God pre-destined everything, no, I am not wishing to get into the free-will/pre-destination debate... yet . The point I am getting at is, if God indeed did create the world and all things within it, God created Sin, and He created all evil. God commands all of the universe's matter at his fingertips, and He chooses, out of all things, to create a world of Sin, destruction and pain. Yes, I do realize He reconciled us to Him by sending his Son on the Cross to die for our sins. However, take this into account, I see God as this: God is a mad scientist, this mad scientist makes an evil robot, which is Sin, or Satan. He lets the Robot sit in His lab with him for a while, whilst He creates Man. As soon as God sees the World as perfect, and Men as blameless, He sends the Evil Robot to the World, to sow destruction upon Men and the Earth, and to inflict them with Sin. How thoughtless is that? As soon as The Scientist saw all was good, He Himself let The Robot mess everything up! As soon as all hope has seemed to have faded, alas! the evil scientist blows up the Robot, and the denizens of the earth rejoice, and praise the Scientist for His righteousness! Glory be to the Scientist! But wait! What about all the people the Robot killed before the Scientist came? What happened to them? Oh, well, they shall burn in the Scientist's furnace, which is below His lab... Does this seem quite fair? Does this seem quite glorifying to the Scientist? Huh... Everything seemed perfect in the world before He let the robot release it's rage upon Man, and sat in Heaven and watched the destruction of Man before his eyes...
I think you see where I am going with this, and I will admit it is not a perfect match up of Christianity, but, why does God punish us for Sin? He created Sin itself! He is as the mad scientist, He creates the very problem, but then fixes it, and receives glory. I do not see Hell as justice, and how God can come down in all His Righteous Fury and deal "justice" to Man. Sure, God did tell Adam and Eve not to eat of the tree, and they sinned, they disobeyed God... but look at the consequences. There is now Sin, Death, Nature is against us, all of these terrible things. You may say we chose to sin, and that it is our fault... but is it truly our fault? God pre-destined this to happen, this is how He wrote History, and God unfortunately sends those who fall into Sin completely and do not reach out of it, to Hell, and it seems rather unfair. Why would a God who loves Man so much create their very downfall? Why would He leave such a loophole? Hmmm, I am eagerly awaiting responses on this one.
The Power of Prayer
We pray to talk to God, this is our communication with God. Many people say "My prayer was answered!" I see not the logic in this, of course your prayer is "answered", it will always be answered. The answer to everything in life is either Yes, No, or not now. It is the same with prayer, it seems to be merely a coincidence. I shall pray for One Million Dollars. What may my responses be? Yes, No, or not now. Prayer seems just to be a coincidence, it is ambiguous whether God truly did answer your prayer, or if it was rather Luck, or coincidence. In the Bible there are various verses describing the power of Prayer, and how all prayers are answered, and how with Faith in your prayer you can move mountains. Well of course all prayers will be answered, if there is a God or not. Everything about prayer just seems to be quite ambiguous... Trying to prove the power of prayer as a powerful thing is rather ambiguous in itself.
I shall probably think of more in time. Please be aware that I am in no means trying to bash Christianity, I simple have questions begging to be answered. Thanks!
Posted : January 5, 2010 12:02 pm
A couple things here, Light:
First of all, you have touched a major point in the debate over God's foreordination: how can we say that God created all things and still absolve Him of responsibility for creating evil?
My response is fourfold--first, I would question one assumption of the question. The trouble is that you think of evil as an objective force something that exists "out there" so to speak. However, where God is the very definition of goodness, evil only exists as a perversion of that which is good. What is death? The perversion of life. What is sickness? The perversion of health. Every sin is a perverted form of some good thing.
Second, you assume that Augustinianism/Calvinism denies free will, which it does not. I would deny libertarian free will (which is nonsense) but not natural free will to do what we please. Humans are responsible for their actions, even while those actions are foreordained. There is no contradiction because all actions are caused--by our own desires.
Third, you assume that because there is evil in the world, God must have caused it under the Augusto-Calvinist view. Yet what is the cause? Can anything happen that God does not foresee or allow? If God had a good reason to allow/foreordain evil, then He is morally justified in doing so.
Fourth, I would like to present a reason why God allows evil: so that He can bring a greater good from it. God allows and even foreordains evil so that He can redeem it through the work of Jesus Christ, His Son. God allowed Satan to do His worst so that He could come to earth to redeem His people and restore them to a right relationship with Him.
Let me illustrate these points more fully: one of my favorite books is Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings. If Tolkien had not ordained Sauron's evil, would Middle-Earth be as great of a creation? Absolutely not. We glorify Tolkien because he created a great story--a story that would not be great without the evil in it. Now, who is responsible for Sauron's evil? On one level we could blame Tolkien because, after all, he wrote the character. Yet, when we consider it, we realize that Sauron is responsible for Sauron's evil--we don't blame Tolkien because Tolkien uses it to create a greater good.
Just as the blame should not fall on Tolkien for Sauron's evil, so we cannot blame God for evil in the world even though He has foreordained it. The point here is while yes, God has ordained evil, He has done so for a purpose--so that He might bring good out of it. It's what redemption is all about.
On dispensationalism:
I have to disagree with dispensationalism for many reasons;
a) There are only two biblical covenants: the Covenant of Works (Adam, fulfilled in Christ) and the Covenant of Grace, or the Promise (Abraham, David, realized in Christ).
b) It ties together various passages in weird and wonderful ways that the text doesn't even suggest, much less demand.
c) Its "literal hermaneutic" raises more questions than it answers.
d) The sacrificial system is no longer necessary and will not be reinstituted because Christ is our High Priest (read Hebrews).
e) It seems to be a fairly recent innovation started by John Darby in the 1800s, with no precedent anywhere in the history of the Church, premillennial or otherwise.
f) Covenant theology provides a much more robust framework for understanding the biblical metanarrative.
Just had to put that out there.
TBG
Whereof we speak, thereof we cannot be silent.
If God did not exist, we would be unable to invent Him.
Posted : January 5, 2010 1:23 pm
Welcome back to NarniaWeb Light In The Dark. Now I shall attempt to address your questions or at least get talk started.
Punishment of Sin: There is one thing that might clear up your understanding of what sin is. You suggest that God created evil along with all that which is good. But what is evi? Let me ask you. Can you measure darkness? Can you measure cold? That which is evil is the same thing. It's not measurable in itself, but a condition that expresses a lack of its opposite. Darkness is a term for lack of light. Cold is a term for lack of heat. And evil is a term for lack of good. The God of the Bible is described as absolute perfection and he has a standard of absolute perfection. So in his eyes, anything that falls short of that perfect standard cannot stand beside him. To be consistant with himself, God cannot tolerate anything that does not meet his standard.
God is required to punish sin or he would not be a Just God. But he is also merciful and loving. How can he show both traits to a sinful being? The only way he could was to pay the price that sin demanded because of his Justice himself. Does that help clear things up a little?
Power of Prayer:
This is a biggie. Your assertion of prayer is correct. God does answer all prayer requests with a yes, no, or not now. But this is only a small portion of what prayer really is. We tend to think prayer as our making requests of God. It is so much more. Prayer is the means of our spirit speaking to God. If you were speaking to a political leader, would you just talk to him in the form of "Can you do this for me?" Other aspects of prayer include praise/worship, confession, thanksgiving, or even just having a friendly chat. Prayer can even include arguments (which God always wins). As you can guess, not all prayers require answers. I pray all the time (in daily life, not as much in a personal quiet time as I ought) and often I'm not making requests. I often tell God how excited I am about this, or thanking him for doing that. One field of prayer that is often associated with prayer is intercession. This is when we come to God on the behalf of someone else. And I have seen direct correlation to prayers taking place and things happening.
Something else is that prayer in a spiritual interaction with God. I see the spiritual realm as another dimension that we cannot perceive with our senses. (If you include space/time as a fourth, this would be another step beyond.) James 5:16 says "The Prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective". The Bible also says that God knows each of our prayers before we think about saying them. That is how he able to answer them in amazing fashion. God worked long ago to put things into position for when I asked about getting another piece of the vision he had for me when I went to Urbana last week. Check my post there for details on that. It was clearly no coincidence that put not only me but everyone else that needed to be in place for that answer to come about.
Another important aspect to prayer is that it is a two-way conversation. When we think of prayer, we think about what are we going to pray about and what are we going to pray for. A major aspect to prayer that gets overlooked is listening. It's not just about us making our requests. It is also about us hearing directly from God. The Gospels record Jesus going off to pray alone often. We can guess from the way he spoke that Jesus let his Father do most of the talking. ("I say what I hear my Father saying, and I do what I see my Father doing"). This is a big thing for me too, because I don't do this often enough either.
Well, I hope that was enough to either answer your questionsn or get some discussion going.
Be watching for the release of my spiritual warfare novel under a new title: "Call to Arms" by OakTara Publishing. A sequel (title TBD) will shortly follow.
Posted : January 5, 2010 1:35 pm
There is a slight problem with your Tolkien/LotR analogy TBG.
Yes, Tolkien as Author can be seen Figuratively as God of LotR. But as he created a Universe in which Eru Illuvatar is a Literal Supreme Deity within the context of his story, the analogy you used leads to a rather intriguing philosophical Conundrum.
If Eru is the Supreme Deity, he is the one that bears the responsibility (or not, depending on whether or not Free Will plays a role) for the introduction of Evil into Middle Earth.
If Tolkien is then considered God of Middle Earth above Eru, then what implications does that have for our own Universe? Is that God worshipped as Yahweh, then a Created God by a Deity even more Supreme? Some sort of Demiurge? That would be a very Gnostic position.
GB
"Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence" -- Carl Sagan
Posted : January 5, 2010 3:11 pm
GB, for the purposes of the analogy, I can conflate Tolkien with Eru. All analogies (except for divinely elected ones) break down at some point.
If we take the story from its own perspective (with Tolkien, say, as translator), then Eru would still not be directly responsible as even there he allows evil for the sake of bringing greater good out of it.
Would you rather me use the analogy of J.K. Rowling and Lord Voldemort?
TBG
Whereof we speak, thereof we cannot be silent.
If God did not exist, we would be unable to invent Him.
Posted : January 5, 2010 3:47 pm
TBG:
GB, for the purposes of the analogy, I can conflate Tolkien with Eru.
No, I don't think you can. That is a Postmodern convention that doesn't work as Tolkien was writing with Archaic conventions (even accepting his conceit that he was merely translating).
All analogies...break down at some point.
I absolutely agree with this (leaving aside issues regarding which constitute "Divinely Elected" ones).
In any case, the central issue is that you are analogizing God as Author. And actually I think this fits the "Calvinist" model you present. But that analogy, just as "Calvinism" does, gives Lip Service to Free Will, without giving it any Reality.
The Characters in the story don't have any Actual Free Will, only a "Virtual" "Free Will" that is completely at the mercy of The Author. Many, many pages ago I presented a way that would make logical sense of Free Will in confluence with God's Will. But my analysis was shot down by WiseWoman as not being true to the "Calvinist" position.
At that point I gave up trying to make sense of what seems to me a Word Game which gives (as I said) Lip Service to Free Will, without giving any Actual Free Will to the Individual. As LITD says, this puts all the burden on God for creating "Evil". Hence your analogy of God as (a pre-postmodern) Author, fits "Calvinism" like a glove.
Now, LITD's own Analogy of God as Mad Scientist, is provocative indeed. But it has a Gnostic resonance with the concept of the Demiurge. And when we return to your analogy of Tolkien as God/Author, we find ourselves with a handy Meta-Analogy for a God beyond God. A Supreme Creator usurped by a Sub-Creator, unknowable from a Human perspective, beyond all human concepts of Good and Evil. A Gnostic proposition for how "Evil" and the "Fallen" State can exist in a Divinely Ordained Universe.
It's all Metaphorical of course . But the Analogies and Meta-Analogies are extremely useful for discussing these ideas, and far more Illuminating than one might think. The Analogies we use reveal our own predilections more than we often care to admit .
Fortunately for me, I remain Agnostic about my own Pre-Conceptions as well as Others' 
.
The Gnostic Agnostic
Gandalf's Beard
"Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence" -- Carl Sagan
Posted : January 5, 2010 5:31 pm
GB, for the purposes of the analogy, I can conflate Tolkien with Eru. All analogies (except for divinely elected ones) break down at some point.
If we take the story from its own perspective (with Tolkien, say, as translator), then Eru would still not be directly responsible as even there he allows evil for the sake of bringing greater good out of it.
Would you rather me use the analogy of J.K. Rowling and Lord Voldemort?
I don't think you could use JK Rowling and Lord Voldemort as analogies in the sin debate. Lord Voldemort was never expected to be some sort of Supreme Being, merely an overweeningly proud human who rejected the limitations of being human, and to obtain as much power over others that he could manage. He rejected the idea that he, too, would eventually die, as all men must. He used a particularly foul way of murdering people to preserve his own life, to keep death at bay. If anything, Lord Voldemort is exactly what Jesus Christ preached against. 'Do not lay up treasures', Jesus said, for example. And at every step of the way JKR's Voldemort exercised his own choices.
Of course it could be said that Voldemort didn't really have much choice. He was the product of a particularly dysfunctional marriage, and grew up in an orphanage where he learned he could bully other people to do whatever he wanted them to do. You could say he was also the consequence of someone else's sin, though I doubt that excuses him, either.
Now I could accept that Eru whatzisname is a Supreme Being in the context of Tolkien's Middle Earth, but I don't think it follows that the creation of such a being makes Tolkien, the author, an uber Supreme Being, at least for the purposes of his literary works. That would be like putting C.S.Lewis in the box seat for his creation of Aslan, which I think would annoy him no end. 
But in any case I have difficulty seeing what is meant by God creating sin, or in any way using humans as puppets. Willing servants, yes, but I think we still have to be willing. One of the things emphasized in the Talmud, which I have been reading, is that the greatest offence one can commit is to hurt innocent others, and this is a message sent loud and clear in all the Scriptures. That is the main difference between God and other so-called Deities that Man has often chosen to worship instead.
The story I read in the Talmud of how Abraham came to the conclusion that there is only one God fair blew my socks off. I hope you don't mind my telling you as briefly as possible this particular tale. 
As a child, Abraham had realised that idols were no use. He contemplated the Sun, but then it set. Abraham contemplated the Moon, but then it, too, gave way to the rising Sun of a morning, as did the stars. Abraham then knew God, and said 'There is a higher power, a Supreme Being, and these luminaries are but His servants, the work of His hands'. Abraham went away to be educated returning to his father's house when he was considered old enough.
It seems that Terah, Abraham's father, kept idols, 12 of them. Abraham offered meat to all of these idols, but no, they didn't eat of the offering. He tried better food, but no, they still didn't respond. They didn't say anything, nor did they move in any way. Abraham destroyed all but one of the idols with an iron bar, putting the bar into the hands of the 12th idol. And when Terah remonstrated with Abraham, the latter said the 12th idol set to against the others, which even Terah, a loyal servant of Nimrod, disbelieved. Abraham then said 'Why serve such senseless, powerless Gods'?
That seems to me so true and lifelike, that I can believe it to have happened. Such a living God may not want puppets or enforced servitude. Maybe He prefers companions who believe and trust in Him, and walk in His ways. And maybe sin is sort of Anti-God.
Posted : January 5, 2010 11:11 pm