Why Lord of the Rings is better than the Bible

Jason Thibeault,

We all know that Tolkien and C. S. Lewis were both faithful — Tolkien even famously converted C. S. Lewis from atheism to Christianity. There’s no zealot like a convertee, though, so where Narnia is a total Bible plagiarism (Aslan = Jesus, duh), at least Lord of the Rings was a little — or a LOT — more subtle in its allegory. But how does it stack up against the Bible? Let’s see…

  • It’s all canonical — no worrying about apocrypha or passages that were “for a different time”
  • There are physical manifestations of every character, whether god or demigod, which can be defeated through physical means if you have the power
  • Sam rescues Frodo from his torture — nobody rescued Jesus
  • We never see Gandalf “die” during the fight with the Balrog, so it’s a lot more plausible when he’s “resurrected” — especially since Gandalf explains how he fought the Balrog after the fact.
  • Instead of the rewards of the “Kingdom of Heaven”, Frodo and the Elves leave for the Grey Havens to fade away and eventually cease to exist.
  • Frodo’s burden, which he carries to Mount Doom, is not human sin like Jesus at Golgotha, but ultimate power over all creation.
  • Nobody spends any time telling Hobbits that they are broken and sinful by default, but rather praises their hearty and good natures throughout the book
  • Tom Bombadil is awesome. Name me anyone in the Bible that’s anywhere as cool.
  • Even after the final climactic battle of good vs evil, LotR doesn’t culminate in the destruction of the world
  • The Bible has predicted unicorns, chimaera, cockatrices, dragons, behemoths, leviathans, and twenty foot giants, none of which has shown up in the fossil record. Homo floresiensis, however, has.

I’m sure there’s dozens more bullet points I could come up with, but I’m at work at the moment, and I should turn my attention to my lunch before I’m out of time. Why don’t you folks take a turn at amusing me on this one?

{advertisement}
Why Lord of the Rings is better than the Bible

About the author

Hi! I'm a tech guy, skeptic, feminist, gamer and atheist, and love OSS and science of all stripes. I enjoy a good bit of whargarbl now and again, and will occasionally even seek it out. I am also apparently responsible for the death of common sense on the internet. My bad.

I have opinions. So do you. You want to share them with me. I would like to do likewise. Please don't expect a platform for proselytizing that will go unchecked and unchallenged, though. Contact me via the clicky thingies under my banner.

The commenting rules are simple: don't piss me off. This rule has worked for me for a decade; I have never found a need for any other rule, because any other rules leads to rules-lawyering. Just remember -- this is my property, not yours.
{advertisement}

5 thoughts on “Why Lord of the Rings is better than the Bible”

  1. Clifton
    1

    – Both bored me immensely, in print and film. You once told me I wouldn’t make fun of the first movie if I watched it. You were mistaken. Even the wife made fun of it, and she doesn’t make fun of anything.

  2. CyberLizard
    2

    I can’t stand Bombadil. I skip that chapter every time.

    @Clifton – The movies were meh. Except for Two Towers. There was no goddammed elf army at the battle of Helm’s Deep!!!!111!!! About had an apoplectic fit in the theater for that one.

  4. jthibeault
    4

    Well. I’ll invite you. Gotta get the $20 back somehow. Just don’t expect any cake. And expect lots of evil glares from the bride.

    Just remembered… the one that kicked this off, from a comment I made elsewhere.

    The Bible has predicted unicorns, chimaera, cockatrices, dragons, behemoths, leviathans, and twenty foot giants, none of which has shown up in the fossil record. Homo floresiensis, however, has.

Comments are closed.