Well, I tried to watch LOTR.

I don't think a commentary on life = allegory. Tolkien did reject direct allegory, as in saying Mordor represented the Nazis, or any such direct one to one correlation. He did not, however, say that his books were not a commentary on life. I saw a documentary suggesting that the smoke and lack of greenery that characterized most evil persons in his books was most definitely a commentary on the industrialization of his home town in England. Not an allegory, but yes a commentary.

I agree. I have tried at least four times to read the Silmarilion and absolutely could not. But I have at least two friends who think it's completely engrossing.

Excuse me for jumping clear back to the OP. I'm a terrible literalist when it comes to movies, and I have been asked by good friends to leave the room when we were watching Bible movies, due to my vociferous complaining about their changes.I had to bite my tongue and adjust my attitude to make it through the Fellowship of the Ring at the theater, but it wasn't too bad. I had to take a few days to get over my irritation at the Two Towers. I really resented them having Faramir take the ring to, shoot, where was that...Isengard? I'm terrible with names. I objected pretty strongly to their portrayal of Fangorn as stupid, and their changing the decision of the entmoot. I thought their changing Helm's Deep to a place of hiding rather than a place of fighting was also objectionable. There was a fourth issue I had with Two Towers, but I can't think of it at the moment.The Return of the King was much easier for me, although it was sad that they had Sam leave Frodo when he had promised Gandalf he wouldn't. That didn't happen in the book, and it seemed against the eternal loyalty they seemed to want to portray in Sam.A couple more comments.The battle between Gandalf and Saruman over Theoden was hilarious. I'm sure they pulled it straight out of a Kenneth Copeland healing service.Someone asked about whether the elves coming to Helm's Deep was as we pictured it. It's not really a valid question, since that just didn't happen in the book. I thought that change was neat, though.I really liked several of the characters, and even though the battles with the oliphaunts (marmadukes) was completely hokey, I loved both Legolas' stunts and Eowyn's battle. I really liked Eowyn and pretty much all the hobbits. Gandalf was awesome, too, and once I got over Aaragorn's voice, I really liked him, too.Despite the pain of the two towers and the insult I felt to the totally fictional Treebeard and Faramir, I thought the movies were great, and I have watched them nearly half as many times as I've read the books. :-)

I was referring to Frodo believing that Sam was trying to take the ring, and then Sam climbing down the mountain...right before the spider, as you said. In the book, Sam struggled with leaving Frodo, but that was because he thought Frodo was dead. That happened in the movie also. There is no parallel in the book to Sam leaving Frodo because Frodo no longer trusted him.And Faramir, right, that was Osgiliath. He was on his way to Gondor, though, not Isengard. It is probably fair to say that delaying Faramir's decision to leave Frodo with the ring is not as bad as I make it out to be. Faramir's a favorite character, though, and Tolkien made such a big deal of Faramir's noble demeanor ("the blood of Numenor ran nearly true in him" was said repeatedly) that I didn't like seeing him not live up to the same greatness in the movie.The scouring of the Shire would have been cool in a movie. The boldness of the returning hobbits would have been an awesome thing to portray. I assume that was a length issue. This was referring to the Gandalf-Saruman battle over Theoden. Hmmm, you've obviously not been to too many charismatic healing services. I agree it doesn't wander from the book, but the methodology was so much like the healers that all of us here who had been in that religious movement at any time immediately recognized it. Gandalf's face and hand motions as he held his hand up towards Theodoen; his commands for Saruman to leave Theoden, and Saruman's "He's mine," were all right out of a charismatic exorcism. The resemblance was too uncanny not to spur laughter.

I don't believe the message, at the heart, is have faith no matter what. It goes deeper than that.The reason Job gives for regretting his earlier challenges to God is "I have heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eyes have seen you. Therefore I abhor myself, and I repent in dust and ashes."An insightful writer that I like very much once portrayed Job as showing up in the modern age to give advice. A modern person asked him, "What did you learn?" Job answered, "God didn't consult me when he made crocodiles," and then he walked away. As the modern person scratched their had about the answer, Job turned back and said, "Oh, and I saw him. It was all worth it. I saw him."So, while I don't want to reduce the heart of Job to one sentence, if I had to, my pick would not be "have faith no matter what." It would be "God, and even just a view of God, is worth it."If I can add one more thing. Back when I was a New Ager, and I didn't believe there was a personal God of any sort, I watched In the Presence of Mine Enemies. When the prisoners of war, some of whom had been mistreated and tortured for years, got on their knees and thanked God for their release, I was horrified. I literally shouted at the TV. I thought they should have been mad at God, if he existed, for what had happened to them, not thanking him for their release. Something in me, however, told me that there could be only one reason they were thanking God, and that was if God had been present for them in some helpful way during those years of imprisonment and torture. It was one of the more major events that led me to faith.I tell that story, because it says to me that Job's not fantasy, but occurs in modern day as well.

Maybe about 95% of Christianity is unjustifiable.I'm sure I'm paraphrasing terribly, but I'm also sure I'm getting the message right when I say even Mahatma Ghandi said, "I'd be a Christian, if it weren't for Christians."

I'd like to answer this, but first I have to make sure I really understand what it's saying, because I'm not confident of that.Are you saying by "indeed he would be the only one between he and I that would have seen him," that no one has seen God since Job's time? I think it's clear you're saying that, but do you mean in your opinion, Job's opinion, or everyone's opinion?My thought would be that part and parcel of "a view of God is worth it" would be "a view of God is possible" rather than available to Job only.Wait, I get it. You mean see as in visibly lay eyes on. Gosh, I never even considered that literal a meaning. I'm thinking see as in have some sort of experience with God that would make the suffering worth it, and the stories of such experiences are innumerable.Hmm, maybe I should adjust my interpretation of Job's message one more time to "Hang on when it looks bad; God hasn't abandoned you even when it looks like he has."The difference between that and "have faith no matter what" is the assumption that you and I are putting on that message. I'm assuming God really will appear at some point, and it will be worth it, and you're (it appears to me) assuming it's unlikely there will be any visible, noticeable reward for that faith.Just thoughts. Gosh, thanks, I'm honored. Can't imagine I deserve a statement like that, but thank you.