Is Eru God? [Archive] - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Gothmog

11-16-2005, 01:43 PM

I say Eru is not God. He is a God, but not the .

As christian, it's obvious that Tolkien's view of a god is that of the Christian/Jewish(/Muslim/Buddhist etc. as all gods are the same according to many people) and he's been influenced by that of course. Because of his attempt to create a complete mythology, he needed a creator and a story of creation. And what is more natural than get inspiration from the Creator he believed in?

But if you say that Eru is God, you say that Tolkien tried to describe God through Eru Illuvatar and as Kuruharan wrote in his post, Tolkien wouldn't like to compare something of his own creation with something as complex and beyond expressions as God. I think Tolkien had too much respect towards God to write about him in his books.

Unconscious of it, Eru might have become an equivalent to God, or at least can be regarded as such by people. It's obvious, as we are discussing it right now. But if the question is, did Tolkien mean Eru as God, I say no.

Fordim:
There's a lot hanging on this question: if you believe that Eru is God, then you are saying that the moral "rules" of M-E are Christian. If you believe that Eru is not God, then those "rules" are something else.
I think you're simplifying things a bit here. I don't believe Eru is God, but I do believe that the moral rules of M-E are Christian. Tokien, as Christian and Catholic, had certain views of what was moraly correct and what was to consider "bad". The eternal battle between Good and Evil. These opinions are reflected in his work. But most moral rules aren't specific Christian rules, but more of common sense and a worldspread moral code. Killing is bad. So is torture, betrayal, lies, greed etc. Helping others, sacrificing oneself for someone or something etc is considered good.

One thing that I find interesting in the comparing of Eru and God is what that make Valar. Angelic beings you say, but to me Manwe seem to have more power than any archangel of the Christian religion. He's more of a semi-god. M-E is his kingdom, not Eru's domain even if Manwe subordinate to Iluvatar. There's no equivalent in Tolkien's religion.

Also intersting is Melkor's role as the fallen angel, becoming the Dark Lord. In this case, there's a lot of similarities with Christianity and Satan's fall. He was one of the greatest angel's, one of those with most power and one of those closest to God, but was hungry for more power. Exactly like Melkor. They both fell and became to metaphor of Evil.

And there ends my oversized discussion. Wake up again! I vote NO ;)

Kuruharan

11-16-2005, 02:09 PM

Chicken.

Tis better to be a correct chicken than an incorrect dogmatist (even though I will wildly alternate between conditions from time to time...okay maybe from moment to moment.)

Mithalwen

11-16-2005, 02:47 PM

I just about agree with Gothmog so won't repeat. If by God you mean a supreme creating being the answer is yes. But if that capitalisation you assign him exclusively to the Christian tradition then no. But personally I think it a little arrogant of the believers to define and lay claim to god (rather like the bacteria in the petrie dish laying claims on the scientist) and so since monotheists by definition believe in one god, that rather implies that Allah, Yaweh and God are one and the same and so the answer is yes.

Eru is really more of a divine clockmaker - sets the thing in motion and watches rather than getting personally involved. Which is more or less my perception of God these days so I could say yes but it is clearly not what Fordim means so it goes back to no...

Fordim Hedgethistle

11-16-2005, 02:56 PM

And yet, Mith you have failed to put your vote where your mouth is....why the reluctance to weigh in with an actual "Yes" or "No"?

As to your view of Eru as "setting things in motion" without actually "getting involved", how do you explain what happens at Mount Doom (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=12322) when Gollum "slips" into the Fire? Tolkien himself was quite clear (in the Letters somewhere) that there was the direct intervention from 'outside' at that point....

Gothmog

11-16-2005, 02:59 PM

But Fordim, doesn't your own excellent poll say that Gollum slipped? If we listen to the majority...

:p

Mithalwen

11-16-2005, 03:03 PM

And yet, Mith you have failed to put your vote where your mouth is....why the reluctance to weigh in with an actual "Yes" or "No"?

.

Surely it is the most honest and natural course of action for an agnostic? :rolleyes:

Folwren

11-16-2005, 03:57 PM

I voted no, and for those who are keeping close tabs on this - I'm working on my reasons offline. :D

-- Folwren

Gurthang

11-16-2005, 04:30 PM

Why not? Tolkien himself created the conceit that the works were translations from other works. So how do we know whether we are reading the view of the translator or the original writer? And how do we know that the original writer was correct in their view of Eru? Arguably we are only seeing the views of the Elves (and they were a huge influence on the Hobbit writers), and how do they know the 'truth' about Eru any more than anyone else in Arda? It reminds me of how school history books in different eras or different countries can address the same 'facts' in different ways. It's all about primary and secondary sources and to what extent they are trusworthy.

I think you misunderstood. The point I would disagree with you on has to do with Absolute Truth and our knowledge of God through the Bible. Seeing as these are more a religious debate than a Tolkien discussion, I chose to not start down that tangent.

But I do agree with you that each writer's point of view is different, and therefore we cannot wholy point to who Eru exactly was.

Bergil

11-16-2005, 04:31 PM

davem

11-16-2005, 05:20 PM

There's a downloadable issue of Vinyar Tengwar http://www.elvish.org/VT/VT43sample.pdf which contains Tolkien's translations of the Lord's Prayer & the Ave Maria. Tolkien uses 'Eru' to translate 'God'.

For what its worth - Tolkien seems to have considered the two words equivalent - only really stubborn & awkward people would deny that ;)

However, I'm not sure that actually proves anything, or contributes very much...

Lalwendë

11-16-2005, 05:43 PM

Stubborn and awkward it may be, but this only proves that Tolkien used that word in this linguistic experiment as it was as close as he could get in the Elvish language. Translating prayers which clearly meant a lot to him he would have been keen to find an appropriate word in the Elvish language which was similar, but it does not mean that the two concepts/beings are the same thing. He came up with a word for 'Jesus' in the Elvish tongue; we know that the Elves did not have Jesus so does the fact that Tolkien came up with one now mean that Jesus also existed in Middle-earth?

The Only Real Estel

11-16-2005, 06:00 PM

To my mind, there are no (or few) "christian morals", or rather, they're little different from everyone else's morals. You do the right thing (because it's right or for a reward CF:Heaven), or you do the wrong thing. In other words, I can't tell whether or not Eru is THAT god or A god, they all look similar.

So you have to look at God as not just a set of morals or else, yes, it is hard to tell whether he is "THAT God or A god."

I would say Middle-earth appeared to be governed by a moral code of some sort. That doesn't mean that it was a set of so called "Christian morals," though. All it means is that it wasn't a society where anything went.

But I would still say that Tolkien did not mean for Eru to be God [Jehovah].

*He did not pursue a personal relationship with what he created.

*He did not appear in ME that I'm entirely aware of, and he certainly never stayed there for any period of time nor made known to others who he was.

*He did not provide a way for all races to go to the Undying Lands.

Those are three examples that I could think of in the short time I had to post this. I still agree with Esty that, although there are certainly a fare share of parallels, Tolkien's Eru was not meant to be "THE God."

The Saucepan Man

11-16-2005, 07:23 PM

Is Eru God?

No, of course not. He is a fictional character created by Tolkien as the God of fictional peoples. God in our world (whether He exists or not) is a God of real peoples.

Did Tolkien intend Eru to be God?

The evidence suggests that he did. It is natural that Tolkien created Eru as a reflection or aspect of the God that he believed in. The differences in their respective natures is irrelevant, as Middle-earth is set in a time which predates our own recorded history. And our interpretations of God vary between faiths and also at different stages within the texts of particular faiths (the God of the Old Testament is, for example, very different in many respects from the God of the New Testament).

Should the reader interpret Eru as God?

Well that, of course, depends upon the individual reader. ;)

Which question are you asking, Fordim? :p

Aiwendil

11-16-2005, 07:33 PM

Is the character of "Deep Throat" from All the President's Men W. Mark Felt?

In other words, I think the question as phrased is purely an issue of convention, definition, and semantics.

littlemanpoet

11-16-2005, 08:39 PM

I haven't voted yet, but I'm thinking about it. I have an answer to Estelyn's rather persuasive points, though. Myth is, among other things, the encapsulation of truth as it is known by its progenitors. Thus, the old testament of the bible hints at, but does not reveal a saving Christ Jesus, and gives a limited view of Yahweh. By comparison, the new testament has a filled out revelation of Yahweh God as a clear Trinity.

Tolkien created his myth to predate the old testament; thus, it is no surprise that it presents an even more limited view of the creator. This does not lessen who the creator really is, only the knowledge of the creator amongst his creatures. Therefore, I can see Tolkien deciding that the people of Middle Earth, predating the old testament, wouldn't have knowledge of a creator who wanted a personal relationship with his creatures.

I do think that Tolkien meant Iluvatar to be a picture of the God he worships. The very same Being? Well, yes. If one understands the nature of spiritual reality, all the conventions of writing are subservient to the Truth. Maybe a good story is supposed to be only feigned history, feigned reality, but sometimes the Truth breaks through because of the nature of Truth. That's my thought. Yes. That's my answer... soon as I submit this post.

Fordim Hedgethistle

11-16-2005, 09:35 PM

Which question are you asking, Fordim? :p

Barrister.

And I note that you've refused to vote.

Solicitor.

Roa_Aoife

11-16-2005, 09:40 PM

As much as I would love to get into a philosophical and religious debate, I'm going to avoid those subjects. Simply, I voted yes, because I believe that was Tolkien's intention. Whether or not Eru matches with our idea of God, Christian or otherwise, Eru is most likely how Tolkien veiwed the Christian God. No one ever said he was right or wrong, or what it meant for the people of ME. Tolkien followed the Christian God, so it stands to reason that he formed Eru after his God.

Good arguments to everyone though. :D

And where's your vote, Fordim?

Firefoot

11-16-2005, 09:53 PM

Was Eru based off God? Yes. Do they have strong similarities? Certainly. But are they the same? I would have to say no. There are simply too many incongruencies. One of these, Esty has already explained beautifully. LMP, I understand what you are saying... to an extent. But even in Old Testament times God still did seek out relationships with his people. Abraham, Jacob, David... the list goes on. It was in a slightly different way, granted, but Eru does not even take this step. His contact with his creation is very limited. Eru's interest in Arda seems to be largely with concern to his creation as a whole rather than to the individuals in it.

Another issue I have wrestled around with is that one of the Christian beliefs is that God does not test us beyond our strength. Let's look at Frodo... his Quest was inherently beyond his strength. He was set with an impossible task, one he would be forced to fail at (if you can call it failing. But anyway...). And it's pretty explicit that Frodo was meant to bear the Ring, that it was appointed to him - the "by Eru" is implied. There's a reason God sent Jesus to the world rather than having a sinful being appointed to the (for them) impossible task of saving the world. This is not saying that I think Frodo should have been able to destroy the Ring, nor that there should have been a Christ-figure in LotR. I don't think that. But I do think that it is an indicator that Eru is not the same as the Christian God.

I think this may be one mistake I have made in the past, trying to equate Eru too much with God. It has been something of an assumed thing, but it makes more sense to analyse Eru as an independent being, the god of Arda and a representation, or a depiction, of God, but not God himself. Coming back to the translator conceit, I think a line does have to be drawn. The truth is that Middle-earth is fantasy. Even if it is read as a mythology for our world, that doesn't necessarily make Eru God any more than it makes the Greek Zeus God.

alatar

11-16-2005, 10:05 PM

Very short post (unlike my SbS tome ;)).

I'm with Gothmog, Mithalwen and SpM on this one.

Eru is a God, having no creator, and as far as we know, is omniscient, omnipresent, extra-natural, etc. Eru is not God, as it is incompatible with the Christian God. Think that, like many things, one tends to see/assign personal beliefs to words used by others.

And it's against my beliefs to vote in any Downs poll ;).

Orominuialwen

11-16-2005, 11:03 PM

Another issue I have wrestled around with is that one of the Christian beliefs is that God does not test us beyond our strength. Let's look at Frodo... his Quest was inherently beyond his strength. He was set with an impossible task, one he would be forced to fail at (if you can call it failing. But anyway...). And it's pretty explicit that Frodo was meant to bear the Ring, that it was appointed to him - the "by Eru" is implied. There's a reason God sent Jesus to the world rather than having a sinful being appointed to the (for them) impossible task of saving the world. This is not saying that I think Frodo should have been able to destroy the Ring, nor that there should have been a Christ-figure in LotR. I don't think that. But I do think that it is an indicator that Eru is not the same as the Christian God.
But perhaps to destroy the Ring was not the task Frodo was appointed to do. I think that he was meant to bring the Ring to Mount Doom, but nothing more. I think it was meant by Eru for it to be Gollum who unwitttingly destroys the Ring. Frodo believed that it was task to destray the Ring, but he also believed that his 'duty' of sorts was to die doing this. The way I see it, Eru did not intend Frodo to die in the destruction of the ring because he was never meant to be the "all-conquering-Ring-destroyer," as Lalwende says in the What happened at Mount Doom? thread. He was not meant to be a Christ-figure, which is what his death under those circumstances would have made him. Now, if Frodo was mistaken in his belief that he had to die to save the world, then I believe he could have been mistaken in his belief that he actually had to destroy the Ring himself. His believing that was one of his main motivations in getting to Mount Doom, so I think that this belief was necessary to complete his part, but erroneous. (Sorry for my very round-about way of saying this.)

*He did not provide a way for all races to go to the Undying Lands. But the point was supposed to be that Men (and possibly Hobbits, although Tolkien never says anything about them in this context) got something different, but possibly better, in that they got to dwell in the halls of Iluvatar. Elves got immortality, and then got to go to the Undying Lands, but Men got something different, in part in my opinion to make up for their shorter earthly lives.

In short, I agree with what lmp has already stated, so that's how I'll vote.

Estelyn Telcontar

11-17-2005, 02:32 AM

... to find an appropriate word in the Elvish language which was similar, but it does not mean that the two concepts/beings are the same thing. Precisely! Well-said, and your post hints at a slight difference ( :rolleyes: ) in viewpoints between you and another person nearby. Stick to it!

Saucy, your precise and concise summary of the possibilities hits the nail on the head. I agree completely, though I suspect we aren't coming at the conclusions from the same point of view.

I do think that Tolkien meant Iluvatar to be a picture of the God he worships. The very same Being? Well, yes. LMP, though we are approaching this question from a similar point of view, we come to opposite conclusions! The question Fordim asked is not whether Tolkien considers Eru and God to be the same, but whether it is my (and your) opinion. I know Tolkien set Middle-earth up to be our Earth in a previous history, but he realized that it was an alternate pre-history. If we take Eru to be identical with the creator God of our earth, then the story of creation (with Adam and Eve being the parents of all living) which is so central to his identity does not fit.

The mythology of Middle-earth is a lovely alternative, taking some variant points of view into consideration (such as making the Valar include elements of both pagan Gods and Judeo/Christian angels), but it cannot fit into Jewish and Christian theology. It is fiction and I enjoy it very much, but I do not attempt to reconcile it with my real life belief.

The Saucepan Man

11-17-2005, 03:34 AM

And I note that you've refused to vote.How can I vote when you have not sufficiently explained which question I am answering? :p

Folwren

11-17-2005, 09:00 AM

I don't really have to write anything any more. I was going to yesterday, trully I was, but right at that moment, Pop said it was time to go home. . .so we left and that means leaving the computer.

Anyway, if you want my view of the matter, you can go back and read Firefoot's post (except about Frodo. . .I've no qualms about that). In short - Eru is much like God, but there are differences which can not be over looked.

But so many people have voiced what I think is right that I don't see much point in writing it again. :)

-- Folwren

Thinlómien

11-17-2005, 09:01 AM

It seems that the no-party are louder and better and longer-worded in their theories. I just wonder where are all the yes-people, since it's now 10-10 and most of the posts on this thread are by no-people.

I myself voted for "yes" without thinking so much about it, but now some of you (lmp, Lalwendë, Estelyn etc.) have made me think more about the issue. Advise: never vote in a BD poll without thinking the thing from as many aspects as you can :rolleyes:. Anyway, I'd probably still say "yes", because I think the question as "Did Tolkien mean Eru to be God?" Of course we can debate endlessly only about the meaning of the question, but since Fordim refuses to explain the question, we must interpret it as we want to, or so says my logic...

littlemanpoet

11-17-2005, 09:55 AM

LMP, though we are approaching this question from a similar point of view, we come to opposite conclusions! The question Fordim asked is not whether Tolkien considers Eru and God to be the same, but whether it is my (and your) opinion. I know Tolkien set Middle-earth up to be our Earth in a previous history, but he realized that it was an alternate pre-history. If we take Eru to be identical with the creator God of our earth, then the story of creation (with Adam and Eve being the parents of all living) which is so central to his identity does not fit.

The mythology of Middle-earth is a lovely alternative, taking some variant points of view into consideration (such as making the Valar include elements of both pagan Gods and Judeo/Christian angels), but it cannot fit into Jewish and Christian theology. It is fiction and I enjoy it very much, but I do not attempt to reconcile it with my real life belief.My answer remains "yes" - to both aspects of the question: Tolkien meant it, and it is so. The myths are not mutually exclusive, but tell different stories about different peoples. Even if Tolkien did not mean it, it still is so. The Spirit and Truth shine through, and most of us perceive it. We may call it other things because of whatever reasons, but it still is what it is.

There's a lot hanging on this question: if you believe that Eru is God, then you are saying that the moral "rules" of M-E are Christian. Well, yes, since I believe that to say Christian is to say Truthian, because according to my belief, He is the Truth; all Truth originates with Him. Tolkien's Eru shines through as Him. But I still hold that it's an incomplete view, coming from a myth by "people" who knew very little. Still, what is known, rings True.

Fordim Hedgethistle

11-17-2005, 10:15 AM

Ah, and so as always we end up discussing the question the poll is asking rather than debating an answer to it. We could set up our own parliamentary democracy! (I call the Speaker's Chair!)

At any rate, Esty has already pointed to what I meant with the question: what do you think? If the question were what did Tolkien think the answer would be pretty obviously "yes" -- Tolkien intended Eru to be the Christian God (as Tolkien saw him).

So we once again come to this: which should govern our interpretation -- authorial intent (Tolkien intended Eru to be God, so He is), or personal response (Eru doesn't seem like God to me, so he is not). And as always, I am caught somewhere in between.... Insofar as Tolkien clearly created Eru as an image of God, and inasmuch as M-E seems to run according to fairly strictly laid out Christian morality (as interpreted by Tolkien) then I would go for the yes side. But, insofar as Eru does not reflect my own view of what God is or may be, and inasmuch as I interpret the moral vision of Middle-Earth as reflecting some fairly pre-Christian notions of honour and doom (OE dom) then I would like to answer no.

So to Roa and Saucy, who are both demanding I vote (quite justly) I will only say that I think I need to read some more responses and arguments before I can decide. Why do you think I start these polls? I genuinely want to see what people have to say to help me figure out where I stand...

...well, except for that whole Balrog-wings thing. They clearly have them and they clearly work, no need for discussion. Oh, and Elves' ears -- they're not pointy.

Feanor of the Peredhil

11-17-2005, 10:32 AM

At any rate, Esty has already pointed to what I meant with the question: what do you think? Ah, well... if that's the question, then you've forgotten the agnostically cheerful third answer: "It makes no difference whether he is or isn't." :p

Seriously though, you pose a tough question. If you were to ask "Is that flower pink?" you could look at it and say "Why certainly, and a lovelier shade of whitish-red I've never seen." (note that this question does not work on blind men) But the question you ask, Professor Hedgethistle, is more along the lines of "Is that small Irish man clad all in green with a shillelagh in his hand and a wee pile of gold in his pocket a leprechaun?" In order to answer that, you must first contemplate "Well... are leprechauns real?" You know that the little Irishman is there, just as we have Eru to work with. The problem is trying to correlate what you've got to what you aren't entirely sure about. Do you see the dilemma?

So if you were saying "Does Tolkien think that Eru's God?" I'd say "I think so, yeah." But since you're asking me, I have to put forth the point that well... perhaps both Eru and God are fictional creations/projections, so maybe they are the same. Then again, maybe I'm as blind as the man who can't see pink.

Thinlómien

11-17-2005, 10:36 AM

Ah, well... if that's the question, then you've forgotten the agnostically cheerful third answer: "It makes no difference whether he is or isn't." :p

Seriously though, you pose a tough question. If you were to ask "Is that flower pink?" you could look at it and say "Why certainly, and a lovelier shade of whitish-red I've never seen." (note that this question does not work on a blind men) But the question you ask, Professor Hedgethistle, is more along the lines of "Is that small Irish man clad all in green with a shillelagh in his hand and a wee pile of gold in his pocket a leprechaun?" In order to answer that, you must first contemplate "Well... are leprechauns real?" You know that the little Irishman is there, just as we have Eru to work with. The problem is trying to correlate what you've got to what you aren't entirely sure about. Do you see the dilemma?

So if you were saying "Does Tolkien think that Eru's God?" I'd say "I think so, yeah." But since you're asking me, I have to put forth the point that well... perhaps both Eru and God are fictional creations/projections, so maybe they are the same. Then again, maybe I'm as blind as the man who can't see pink.

Fea is making sense and is thinking along the same lines with me, but she has just figured out farther the thing than I have. I agree with her.

The Saucepan Man

11-17-2005, 12:09 PM

In order to answer that, you must first contemplate "Well... are leprechauns real?"Superbly put, Fea, if I may say so. Now that Fordim has clarified the question, I am sorely tempted to plead agnosticism, follow Fea's lead and answer with a resounding "don't know".

But, since Fordim has already implicitly accused me of fence-sitting (unreasonably, in my view, as I was simply seeking to determine the nature of the question that I was being asked to answer :p ), I dare not risk further such lawyer-baiting taunts.

The fact that Tolkien most likely intended Eru to represent his God, or rather an aspect of his God, is irrelevant as far as I am concerned since I have complete freedom to interpret the relevance and applicability of Eru to me. And, since aspects of Eru (like, I might add, some aspects of God in our world as presented by a number of faiths) are at odds with my conception of God (assuming that he exists), then I will have to answer the question, as originally posed and subsequently clarified, in the negative.

Even if Tolkien did not mean it, it still is so. The Spirit and Truth shine through, and most of us perceive it. Holy Moley! It's the return of the dreaded Capitals!! :eek: And also precisely the kind of implication that provoked many a post from me on the dreaded C-thread, namely that only those of us who see and understand the "Truth" can properly appreciate LotR.

But I shall let it pass. ;)

Feanor of the Peredhil

11-17-2005, 12:22 PM

I have complete freedom to interpret the relevance and applicability of Eru to me.
Well sure you can interpret however you want. As long as you don't assume that you're right. :p But that's an arguement for the non-existant "What literary theory should be used in studying Tolkien's work?" thread. Mwahahaha.

That's another comment I have: Fordim, you realize that all of our answers, besides having different concepts of "God" behind them, will be coming from people who side very strongly with certain critical theories, whether they know it or not? It's already been nudged at on this thread: the way people believe that literature should be interpreted is going to have a big effect on whether or not they think that ME's god is "our" God.

The Saucepan Man

11-17-2005, 12:31 PM

Well sure you can interpret however you want. As long as you don't assume that you're right.Eh? Are you suggesting that I am not able to make a correct evaluation of the applicability of a text, or a character in it, to my own life?

Oops. Two cans of worms, having been duly opened by lmp and Fea, are liberally emptied all over the thread by Sauce ... :rolleyes:

Mister Underhill

11-17-2005, 12:33 PM

Non-existent? Fea, you've clearly overlooked the infamous Canonicity (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=10593) thread -- all fifteen pages of it. Mwahahaha indeed. ;)

Feanor of the Peredhil

11-17-2005, 12:38 PM

Non-existent? Fea, you've clearly overlooked the infamous Canonicity (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=10593) thread -- all fifteen pages of it. Mwahahaha indeed.
Not overlooking, ignoring. I'll admit to having only caught parts of the argument (I knew it would suck me in, so I avoided it, much like Odysseus and Charybdis ;)), but I'm talking all schools of thought. Though perhaps I did totally miss more of the discussion than I thought I did.

EDIT: looks like I've got me some reading to do. Good thing I finished my homework already. :D

EDIT #2:

Eh? Are you suggesting that I am not able to make a correct evaluation of the applicability of a text, or a character in it, to my own life?
Please note this guy: :p

Folwren

11-17-2005, 12:57 PM

So we once again come to this: which should govern our interpretation -- authorial intent (Tolkien intended Eru to be God, so He is), or personal response (Eru doesn't seem like God to me, so he is not). And as always, I am caught somewhere in between.... Insofar as Tolkien clearly created Eru as an image of God, and inasmuch as M-E seems to run according to fairly strictly laid out Christian morality (as interpreted by Tolkien) then I would go for the yes side. But, insofar as Eru does not reflect my own view of what God is or may be, and inasmuch as I interpret the moral vision of Middle-Earth as reflecting some fairly pre-Christian notions of honour and doom (OE dom) then I would like to answer no.

Great Heavens above! If Eru is Tolkien's picture and understanding of God, then I'll be blowed! I don't know what the Catholic religion is, but I hope to goodness that they don't picture God as quite THAT far off.

Are people here sure that's what Tolkien meant Eru to be? Are you positive that it is a direct parralel, as well as he could make it? I'm not so certain. Anyone in the Christain faith knows that God's greatest thing was to send Jesus to earth and do the most difficult thing in the world for us measly human beings. But Tolkien wrote about Frodo Baggins, a tiny, poor, bewildered hobbit take the burden most of the way - and then even fail in the end. Eru let it happen like that. He didn't send his own son to do it, which he might've had it been a direct comparison.

You want a god of an invented world who's meant to be God, read C.S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia. (The Sacrifice is both in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe and in The Silver Chair.

I'm sure many of us have invented worlds of our own and written about them, right? Well, recently, I've been running into problems. I need a god who can over look things so that everything doesn't run wild and go by chance and so that people actually have something to look up to when they're run down and completely broken by the cruel course of life. I don't want to write about a god who is actually God because that would be taking the assumption that I knew enough about God to actually write a fiction like that. Of course, if I should ever decide to put a god in, I'm going to fashion him after God, but I'll never try to claim or to write him as though he were God. I'm thinking that's more what Tolkien did. He's made very stark differences between God and Eru. . .I don't think he would have done that if he had wanted Eru to be God.

Of course truths are going to show through Tolkien's work. It's impossible to avoid that. But he didn't like allegories, so he's not going to write one!

-- Folwren

The Saucepan Man

11-17-2005, 01:04 PM

Please note this guy: :p Actually, I wilfully ignored him (as you did the C-thread :p ) because you had the germ of a valid point. A person might very well be incapable of consciously recognising the applicability of something to him- or herself. Or they may (consciously or subconsciously) be unwilling to do so ...

... but that's for another thread.

*One can of worms duly filled and sealed tight*

Formendacil

11-17-2005, 01:16 PM

Great Heavens above! If Eru is Tolkien's picture and understanding of God, then I'll be blowed! I don't know what the Catholic religion is, but I hope to goodness that they don't picture God as quite THAT far off.

We do. Or we don't.

I guess it depends on how you think Eru REALLY works in Middle-Earth, and on how God really works in Real life.

Are people here sure that's what Tolkien meant Eru to be? Are you positive that it is a direct parralel, as well as he could make it? I'm not so certain. Anyone in the Christain faith knows that God's greatest thing was to send Jesus to earth and do the most difficult thing in the world for us measly human beings. But Tolkien wrote about Frodo Baggins, a tiny, poor, bewildered hobbit take the burden most of the way - and then even fail in the end. Eru let it happen like that. He didn't send his own son to do it, which he might've had it been a direct comparison.

Ah, but this is intended to be the history of the real world well BEFORE Jesus came to die for us- saving us from a much worse fate than Sauron could have inflicted.

Furthermore, as regards Frodo, yes he was given a very heavy burden. We are all given heavy burdens.

Fail in the end? Of course Frodo failed. Catholicism teaches that we are all imperfect, flawed beings. However, you will note that his QUEST succeeded. The Ring was destroyed.

Divine intervention?

You decide. The results are the same.

Finally, Frodo did receive his reward. And in this life even.

I'm thinking that's more what Tolkien did. He's made very stark differences between God and Eru. . .I don't think he would have done that if he had wanted Eru to be God.

You're thinking? Who are you to know what Tolkien was doing?

I'm don't intend any offence or sarcasm by this, but I am literally asking: how can we know WHAT Tolkien intended unless we go by what he wrote. And what he wrote says that the Lord of the Rings is a fundamentally Catholic work. It's God, therefore, must be a fundamentally Catholic God.

Furthermore, as regards "stark differences" between Eru and God, I am inclined to disagree. I do not think that Eru is nearly as cold or distant as you think, although I will agree that He is not SHOWN as a major player in the books- much the way God is not shown as a major player in the history books, although that does not mean that He was not present.

Any other differences between God and Eru can be put down to YOUR conception of God conflicting with TOLKIEN's conception of God. No one on this earth can truly KNOW God in His entirety, or even incompletely. Therefore, any presentation of God, be it in art, literature, or whatnot, can only be the presentation of what ONE PERSON knows of God.

But he didn't like allegories, so he's not going to write one!

It's not an allegory. There is no single, blatant, behind-the-scenes message. It is, first and foremost, a contrived history of Europe.

And, if it is to be "real and true" history, it must contain the "real and true" God.

Feanor of the Peredhil

11-17-2005, 01:30 PM

And, if it is to be "real and true" history, it must contain the "real and true" God.
Yeah, but who gets to decide who the "real and true" God is? That in itself is a pretty hefty problem, no?

Fordim Hedgethistle

11-17-2005, 01:32 PM

But, since Fordim has already implicitly accused me of fence-sitting (unreasonably, in my view, as I was simply seeking to determine the nature of the question that I was being asked to answer :p ), I dare not risk further such lawyer-baiting taunts.

I didn't accuse you of fence-sitting but of being a solicitor. But don't get me wrong, I love lawyers. I even married a lawyer.

As to Eru-as-Tolkien's-God...if you want to see where he got Him just have a read through Beowulf. Squatter would be able to explain this much better (and in far more informed a fashion) than I, but the God we find in Beowulf is definitely the Christian God, but one who:

a) never seeks a personal relationship with his creation(s),

b) doesn't get directly involved with the battle between good and evil,

c) stands by and allows the most horrific monsters to ravage the land,

d) stands by as the people who destroy those monsters are themselves destroyed by the task,

e) nobody prays to or worships in a church, but everybody sings about and praises with their bards, and

f) is embraced by a culture and a people who believe whole-heartedly that the real meaning of life is found in the acts we do while alive, not where we go when we die, and that honour (how one is spoken of by others) is more important than conscience (how one thinks of oneself).

That's why I have no problem seeing Eru as Tolkien's version of God. This might also explain why Tolkien had a particular love for Mary (as did many people in the "Dark Ages"), insofar as she provides a much more merciful and personal, even human, presence than God: the "world-cyning of Middeneard" (my spelling is all off there -- where is Squatter?)

Formendacil

11-17-2005, 01:50 PM

Yeah, but who gets to decide who the "real and true" God is? That in itself is a pretty hefty problem, no?

As I already said, no one can KNOW God fully.

However, if they know God at all, then surely they have to reconcile their knowledge of Him with the way He is presented in the Old Testament, right?

Well, if you accept that the God of the Old Testament is the God of today, then how hard is it to accept the "God of Middle-Earth" as the God of today?

Gothmog

11-17-2005, 01:53 PM

SpM:Holy Moley! It's the return of the dreaded Capitals!! I can't ignore this opportunity to use a quote that was supposed to be in my next sig: Capital letters were always the best way of dealing with things you didn't have a good answer to. ~Douglas Adams.

It's so true! Just look at the title of this thread; Is Eru God? And do we have a good answer? No!

Back to the Question :p As some of us interpret Fordim's question as what Tokien meant Eru to be, I believe that question can not be answered by us. As Formendacil said, who are we to know what Tolkien was doing? Therefor that question is quite meaningless to me. The question what do you think Tolkien meant or or do you think Eru is God is the only questions we can answer, and that's up to each and everybody.

I doesn't matter how many differences or similarities we find between Illuvatar and the Christian God. We can't decide what Tolkien intended them to mean, if it meant anything. The fact that God inspired the creation of Eru is obvious, but where the limit of inspirated by and being God is drawn is quite diffuse.

And we must remember that what Prof. T tried to create was not a historical document but a mythology. If we say that Eru is God, is Zeus God? Or Odin? I know there's a difference as Eru is a god from fiction, but he was still supposed to be a god of an alternative mythology.

To go in on details in the behaviour or apperance of God and Eru is, according to me, wrong in discussing this question. There will always be similarities and differences. It's better to look at it from a wider perspective, not compare them act by act. And overall, there's a lot of thing alike for the two, but that's only natural. To say that they're the same because of that is impossible. And to say that Tolkien must have created Eru as the image of God just because of his own religious believes is a questionable reasoning. I bet there's a lot of christian writers out there who has created gods that do not resemble God. Folwren described his problems of creating a god that was not God in his post, but still he wants someone like him. God is our view of a good God of obvious reasons and when trying to create a good god, he ends up as something not to far away from our own. That, I believe, was the case in Tokien's god.

Fordim:That's why I have no problem seeing Eru as Tolkien's version of God Does that make him God? Again, that depends on the question. And is he Tolkien's version of God or a good god in general?

littlemanpoet

11-17-2005, 02:24 PM

Holy Moley! It's the return of the dreaded Capitals!! :eek: And also precisely the kind of implication that provoked many a post from me on the dreaded C-thread, namely that only those of us who see and understand the "Truth" can properly appreciate LotR.

But I shall let it pass. ;)Ah, but I was very careful to avoid that implication:

The Spirit and Truth shine through, and most of us perceive it. We may call it other things because of whatever reasons, but it still is what it is.Had I intended to imply that only the Few can perceive it, I would have said that more specifically, and I would have been wrong.

Thenamir

11-17-2005, 02:29 PM

As I have voted, I see now that it is incumbent upon me to defend that vote. And as most of you know I have never been able to shy away from a debate that has a hint of religion in it. :P

Although I find Estelyn’s points well made, I must politely disagree with her conclusion. I have always thought of the God of Middle-Earth as being a reasonable representation of the God Who Is. I base most of that thought on the words of Eru at the beginning of The Silmarillion, where He states (in my own paraphrase) that He is the ultimate Author of the Theme and the Music whence Ea sprang, and that none could alter that music in despite of Him – that those who attempt to do so will only find themselves the instruments of Eru in creating yet greater things which the errant creature had not intended.

Additionally, I do not find the presence of Eru in Arda to be so far off as some describe. It is apparent that the hand of the Creator in Middle Earth, as in our real world, is ever-present and guiding events so that good eventually triumphs over evil, even though we may not see that Hand except in retrospect. I find it in the statement of Gandalf (himself an emissary) to Bilbo at the end of The Hobbit that his adventures were not solely for his benefit, that he is only a small hobbit in a very large world. I find it in the existence of predictive prophecy in some places (e.g. Malbeth the seer, Galadriel, others). I find it in the use of a good-hearted but weakened Frodo and a deranged and self-consumed Gollum in combination to be the destruction of the great evil of their day. It all sounds so, if you will, like God, like something He would arrange.

Just as in our real world we do not see overt and obvious miracles taking place everywhere, so it is in Middle-Earth -- even the wizard Gandalf seems to rely mostly on his great wisdom and not on supernatural power. In both worlds the Power that rules over creation uses people, imperfect, unlikely people, to accomplish His ends. Though He is not oft mentioned in Middle Earth, perhaps it is because all consciously or unconsciously recognize His presence and His working – it is understood by all and therefore there is no need to make constant reference to it, like the air we breathe – it’s a given. Though there are those like Melkor/Morgoth or Lucifer/Satan who attempt to overthrow or thwart His purposes, it is in both worlds a vain effort.

Though my post is not as scholarly as some, it is my opinion, and having held that opinion has increased my enjoyment of LOTR immensely. I may not change any minds – it is, after all, one small voice, and one man’s opinion

Gurthang

11-17-2005, 02:35 PM

To go in on details in the behaviour or apperance of God and Eru is, according to me, wrong in discussing this question. There will always be similarities and differences. It's better to look at it from a wider perspective, not compare them act by act. And overall, there's a lot of thing alike for the two, but that's only natural. To say that they're the same because of that is impossible.

Exactly. If you say that Eru is God, then they will be alike in every single aspect. Meaning that just one difference eleminates the equality and makes Eru not God.

But, on the same note, I believe that Eru is like God. When I think about what Eru does, I am thinking of what God would do. So they are very similar in many respects, but the fact that they are different in even the minutest detail makes the answer no.

I don't know if I explained that very well.
Eru is God: Impossible.
Eru is like God: Definite.

It's so true! Just look at the title of this thread; Is Eru God? And do we have a good answer? No!

That's absolutely correct. Ask the question 'Is Eru god?' and the answer is simple. Ask the question 'Is Eru God?' and you'll start a discussion that will reach 50 responses in 28 hours.

Folwren

11-17-2005, 02:41 PM

Formendacil, before I answer your smashing post in reply to my post, I have to ask you, and the other people who know the answer, a question.

You said, and I'll fetch is so we all know what I'm talking about:

Ah, but this is intended to be the history of the real world well BEFORE Jesus came to die for us- saving us from a much worse fate than Sauron could have inflicted.

Do you mean this literally, or that Tolkien wrote about M-E so that (this is what I've heard in the past) Brittain and the United Kingdoms could have a mythological backround, kind of like Rome and Greece did with all their gods and the like. I've always understood it to be myth. I'll be able to address some things clearly if it's established that it's supposed to be myth, and therefore, yes, before Christ came.

As for your

Any other differences between God and Eru can be put down to YOUR conception of God conflicting with TOLKIEN's conception of God. No one on this earth can truly KNOW God in His entirety, or even incompletely. Therefore, any presentation of God, be it in art, literature, or whatnot, can only be the presentation of what ONE PERSON knows of God.

No. No one can know God in his entirety, but we can know about him, and we can learn his ways. We can consider and ponder on his character and come up with a lot of really good conclusions from reading the Bible and looking around us, and it will show us a lot about him. We can never know him entirely, but that doesn't mean we can't know him. Don't tell me I can't truly know God, and love Him at that.

Anyway, to get back on track - once I get an answer to this Mythology question, or whatever you want to call it, I'll have something more to say on the actual question of whether Eru is God or not.

-- Folwren

Fordim Hedgethistle

11-17-2005, 03:23 PM

Ask the question 'Is Eru god?' and the answer is simple. Ask the question 'Is Eru God?' and you'll start a discussion that will reach 50 responses in 28 hours.

:smokin:

alatar

11-17-2005, 03:24 PM

Love threads like this; a joy to read and by gosh even makes me think!

Tolkien may have patterned Eru after his knowledge and understanding of the Catholic God, yet to say that Eru is the God of Adam, Noah and Moses is a bit of a reach. Even when imagining that the Sil and LotR are history, I have a hard time reconciling Eru with the God of the Old Testament. As an example. the Ainur and Maiar aren't angels but more like relatives - cousins. Now think about it. Unless you misinterpret Genesis 6:1-4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=6&version=31), angels do not have offspring with humans. Melian and Thingol's daughter marries Beren.

And there are some Christians that believe in a preAdamic race of humans that were before the Fall. Are the peoples of ME these people? Or all they all post-Adam? I have a tough time reconciling either.

Anyway, not to offend, but my point is that if you label Eru as Christian, then you have to buy the whole meal, not just sample from the buffet and call it dinner.

davem

11-17-2005, 03:26 PM

I think its clear that Tolkien did not distinguish between Eru & God. The fact that he translated the prayers that were most significant to him into his own languages (Our Father, Ave Maria, Litany of Loreto, etc) points towards this, & many of the comments he makes in the notes to the Athrabeth confirm it.

Nevertheless, Eru is a character in the Legendarium, so its valid to question how close Eru is to God. Tolkien's own theology was perhaps slightly 'idiosyncratic' - or at least had a strongly 19th century feel to it, which many modern Christians may not agree with entirely.

The problem with the way the poll is phrased is that it doesn't distnguish as to whether we are being asked what Tolkien intended or what out own opinion is. What Tolkien intended is not open to opinion - he intended what he intended & nothing else. What we feel is nothing but personal opinion & I don't see what we gain in terms of our knowledge of Tolkien's creation by stating our personal beliefs.

EDIT

As we know, the languages came first & the stories were created to provide a setting for them. Therefore the languages have primacy. If Tolkien translated various Christian prayers into Elvish are they part of the Legendarium? Was this an attempt by Tolkien to integrate his Christianity into his mythology? I don't think we can dismiss what he did as merely an accademic exercise (translating primary world texts into Elvish) because of the value & significance those particular prayers had for him: (I've bolded the ones he translated).

Letter 54

'If you don't do so already, make a habit of the praises'. I use them much in (Latin): the Gloria Patri, the Gloria in Excelsis, the Laudate Dominum; the Laudate Pueri Dominum (of which I am especially fond); one of the Sunday psalms; & the Magnificat; also the Litany of Loreto (with the prayer Sub tuum praesidium) if you have these by heart you never need words of joy.'

Feanor of the Peredhil

11-17-2005, 04:03 PM

Nevertheless, Eru is a character in the Legendarium, so its valid to question how close Eru is to God.
Halbarad is a character in the Legendarium. He certainly shows God-like tendencies, such as showing up when those he loves most need help and desire it (Passage of the Grey Company), giving up his corporeal life for the sake of good... Is he God too?

Bergil

11-17-2005, 04:12 PM

Let's look at Frodo... his Quest was inherently beyond his strength. He was set with an impossible task, one he would be forced to fail at (if you can call it failing. But anyway...). And it's pretty explicit that Frodo was meant to bear the Ring, that it was appointed to him - the "by Eru" is implied

But Eru couldn't MAKE Frodo do anything. Hobbits are basically a sub-spicies of Men, and so immune to destiny. frodo and sam got themselves to mordor (unless Legolas played a bigger part then I'm aware of) and Gollum fell off due to his bad luck and idiocy. UNLESS, fate is decided by the Valar or fate is just whats set down at the start and Eru can actually influence everything, but chose to counterract only evil Ainur (similar to the the Valars policy) due to the "unfair advantage".

I, prefer to believe the former for the same reasons that I dislike the idea of fate, I like to believe that one really does his own work, and really averted failure and dislike the idea of being controlled, even by a perfect being (what fate is).

throw some talk around

davem

11-17-2005, 04:13 PM

Halbarad is a character in the Legendarium. He certainly shows God-like tendencies, such as showing up when those he loves most need help and desire it (Passage of the Grey Company), giving up his corporeal life for the sake of good... Is he God too?

Tolkien never says Halbarad is God. In his later writings particularly (cf the Athrabeth) he repeatedly uses Eru/God as interchangeable terms.

I haven't actually come down on one side or the other. I was simply saying that the comparison is a valid one, not that it is correct.

Folwren

11-17-2005, 04:18 PM

Halbarad is a character in the Legendarium. He certainly shows God-like tendencies, such as showing up when those he loves most need help and desire it (Passage of the Grey Company), giving up his corporeal life for the sake of good... Is he God too?

Is this really a time for sarcasm, m'dear?

And won't somebody please answer my question? I'm unable to write anything until I know whether or not he did write it to be a myth. As it is, I won't be posting anything important again until tomorrow evening - at earliest!

-- Folwren

Gothmog

11-17-2005, 04:36 PM

alatar: As an example. the Ainur and Maiar aren't angels but more like relatives - cousins. A very interesting topic. As I implied in an earlier post, I'd like to know what the Eru=God sayers view of Valar is. Quoting myself: One thing that I find interesting in the comparing of Eru and God is what that make Valar. Angelic beings you say, but to me Manwe seem to have more power than any archangel of the Christian religion. He's more of a semi-god. M-E is his kingdom, not Eru's domain even if Manwe subordinate to Iluvatar. There's no equivalent in Tolkien's religion. As alatar expressed so wonderfully; you have to buy the whole meal, not just sample from the buffet and call it dinner. :)

And to you Folwren: I'm not the right person to answer your question, but I think he meant it to be a mythology of Great Britain. He was somewhat envious of the nordic people and others for their extensive mythology and collection of stories and myths. England has no own mythology. Sure, there's old tales and myths, but they're often not originally english. His "universe" were meant to be the mythology he missed in his own country. That's my opinion...

Feanor of the Peredhil

11-17-2005, 05:10 PM

He was somewhat envious of the nordic people and others for their extensive mythology and collection of stories and myths.
A concept that makes me wonder not "Is Eru God?" but "Is Eru Odin?".

For anybody who has read The Saga of the Volsungs, Tolkien borrowed extensively from it, including things like a magic ring that pretty much dooms anybody who comes in contact with it, the return of a king, the slaying of a dragon from a fissure below... Perhaps he also borrowed Odin who was the head honcho, theistically thinking, and who was not at all against occasionally stepping in to balance out fate a bit. Odin broke Sigmund's sword (which was, amazingly enough, reforged), Eru nudged Gollum into the volcano. Not the best comparison, but just a thought that I'd had. Eru would still be a god, he just wouldn't be "The" god.

Is this really a time for sarcasm, m'dear?
Of course it is darling. You wouldn't want to run the risk of people becoming too serious about this, now would you? After all, we are discussing a fictional character created by a mere man.

Roa_Aoife

11-17-2005, 05:46 PM

As I said, I refuse to get involved in a religious debate over a work of fiction, but my veiws on the similarity between Eru and God were nicely stated by Thenamir. That being said, I find it irrelevant.

As Fordim clarified:
So we once again come to this: which should govern our interpretation -- authorial intent (Tolkien intended Eru to be God, so He is), or personal response (Eru doesn't seem like God to me, so he is not).

I come from the school of though where interpretation means to find the author's intent. My studies are governed by two rules: "The simplest interpretation is usually the best," and "Take the most literal interpretation possible." It doesn't matter what your views of God are or aren't, and it doesn't matter how accurate Tolkien was in his description. What matters is what he meant it to be. And davem made the excellent point:
I think its clear that Tolkien did not distinguish between Eru & God. The fact that he translated the prayers that were most significant to him into his own languages (Our Father, Ave Maria, Litany of Loreto, etc) points towards this, & many of the comments he makes in the notes to the Athrabeth confirm it.

So, as far as this discussion is concerned, it doesn't really matter what you think about God. It matters what Tolkien thinks. It's his story, after all. He gets to write it however he wants, and we can't change his intended meaning- no matter how much we don't like it.

Bêthberry

11-17-2005, 06:46 PM

And davem made the excellent point:

I think its clear that Tolkien did not distinguish between Eru & God. The fact that he translated the prayers that were most significant to him into his own languages (Our Father, Ave Maria, Litany of Loreto, etc) points towards this, & many of the comments he makes in the notes to the Athrabeth confirm it.

So, as far as this discussion is concerned, it doesn't really matter what you think about God. It matters what Tolkien thinks. It's his story, after all. He gets to write it however he wants, and we can't change his intended meaning- no matter how much we don't like it.

Ah but.... Tolkien can change his intended meaing. One of the great difficulties in ascertaining what Tolkien thinks is determining whether what he thinks at one stage of his life is similar to what he thinks at another stage of his life--or perhaps I should say, stage in his writing career. What he thinks as he writes Athrabeth might not--does not?--necessarily reflect what he thinks when he writes his earlier works. (And, yes, I'm mixing up my verb tenses deliberately.)

The other difficulty lies in deciding what weight to give works unpublished in Tolkien's lifetime.

Roa_Aoife

11-17-2005, 10:13 PM

I'm not really an authority on the unpublished works, so I think the question of their importance, again, goes to his intent. Were they unpublished because he didn't want them to be, or because he simply didn't have enough time? If it is the latter, then I think they should carry nearly the same weight of the published.

Also, if LotR was meant as a pre-history for our world, then it would stand to reason that Tolkien would keep at "meshable" with our reality as possible. There was never a stage of his life in which Tolkien wasn't Catholic, believing the Christian God to be part of our reality.

Of course, I'm arguing the supposed intent of a dead man, so this is really just blowing smoke.

The Saucepan Man

11-17-2005, 10:14 PM

Had I intended to imply that only the Few can perceive it, I would have said that more specifically, and I would have been wrong.OK, I shall rephrase the implication which may be validly drawn from your words:

... namely that only those of us who see and understand that which is called by the "Few" the "Truth" but which may be called other things by other people can properly appreciate LotR. :p

And what's with the Capitalisation of the "Few"?

Dang! This tangent has the capacity to tie me up for weeks. I knew that I should have let it pass ... :rolleyes: :D

What we feel is nothing but personal opinion & I don't see what we gain in terms of our knowledge of Tolkien's creation by stating our personal beliefs.

So, as far as this discussion is concerned, it doesn't really matter what you think about God.But surely it is valid for readers to discuss amongst themselves the applicability to each of them of Tolkien's portrayal of Eru, if they wish to do so. Seeking to determine authorial intention is all very well and a perfectly laudable pursuit, the validity of which I do not dispute. But, if others prefer to explore the applicability of the story to their own lives, and thereby possibly gain greater understanding of themselves and fellow contributors, is that not equally valid?

Roa_Aoife

11-17-2005, 10:20 PM

Feanor of the Peredhil

11-17-2005, 11:04 PM

Angry Hill Troll

11-18-2005, 12:56 AM

I voted yes.

I'm a little bit surprised that nobody had yet posted this quote, which I've seen posted on many websites with essays on Tolkien and christianity:God is the Lord, of angels, and of men-and of elves. Legend and History have met and fused.
--J.R.R. Tolkien, "On Fairy Stories," in The Tolkien Reader

It's getting a little bit late to completely explain my reasoning, but I'm convinced that for Tolkien, Eru=God.

Digressing a little bit, here's a philosophical question to ponder (I don't really have an answer for this one ;) ): If two religions both believe in a single, omnipotent and omniscient God, do they necessarily believe in the same God (with differences of opinion of His characteristics, actions, and expectations of humans), or do they believe in different gods whose existences are mutully exclusive?

This doesn't strictly apply to the poll question, since worship of Eru and reverence for the Valar aren't (to my knowledge) religious practice in our world.

Cheers.

Estelyn Telcontar

11-18-2005, 01:33 AM

I If two religions both believe in a single, omnipotent and omniscient God, do they necessarily believe in the same God (with differences of opinion of His characteristics, actions, and expectations of humans), or do they believe in different gods whose existences are mutully exclusive? If both "Gods" have the same essential nature, such as the God of Jews and Christians, they are one and the same. If there are characteristics which are not reconcilable, they are not. Since this is not a discussion of the theology of our primary world, I will not carry this answer further. I have named the characteristics of Eru which I feel are incompatible with the Biblical God in my first post on this thread.

As to your quote concerning Tolkien, that is indisputable (well, someone may find something to dispute about it!), but as Fordim has clarified, this thread is indeed about our opinions.

Child of the 7th Age

11-18-2005, 02:39 AM

Eru Ilúvatar is not the God of the Christian Bible (nor the Jewish Yahwe of the Old Testament).

Esty -- I would agree with you in this limited sense (as long as we restrict the OT to that period from Avram on, rather than the earliest tales). But why restrict God to these particular points in history? Is he not the same God, even when he is described from another point of view? More precisely Tolkien describes God from the point of view of those individuals who lived before the covenant with Avram or before the gift of the Messiah. What changes is not God but the point of view from which he is seen and understood.

burrahobbit

11-18-2005, 03:09 AM

I voted yes for reasons that I feel are very obvious and that have already been brought up. However, I will add that I disagree with the following:

There's a lot hanging on this question: if you believe that Eru is God, then you are saying that the moral "rules" of M-E are Christian. If you believe that Eru is not God, then those "rules" are something else.

Middle-Earth is a pre-Christian world. Like the Jews. Jewish moral rules are not Christian moral rules.

Now I'm going to comment on everything else, all at once, and pay absolutely no attention to who is saying anything. Replies will follow quotes. Feel free to sip all of the rest.

From the very beginning, he establishes contact and reveals himself to them (walking with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden).

Granted. However, he also contacts people through angels and the Holy Spirit. One could say that he does all or nearly all of his contacting through angels and the Holy Spirit. That seems fairly analogous with the various Ainur.

I thought that since Tolkien was a christian and he said that ME was the same world we live in, wouldn't it just be logical that the god was same also?

Yes.

Eru at no time seemed much interested in a personal relationship with his creation.

Reminds me of the Catholic idea of praying through saints. Tolkien was one of those, wasn't he?

I'd like to add to, and somewhat reiterate, what she said. First, that Eru does not seek a personal relationship, which is the core of Christian belief.

I would like to iterate, all on my own, that it isn't. You are confusing "What Christians Believe" with "What I Believe." Perhaps it is very important to your particular group of Christians, but there are lots of diffeent groups and they don't all hold t hat bit in quite such high regard.

The main difference then is the fact that God became incarnate and walked among us.

That just hadn't happened yet. The books take place BC. Except for BoLT, sort of.

Eru acts very much how I've always though God would. (except in teh judgment of melkor.)

Howso? The Devil does lots of things that God wants him to, even naughty things. CF. Job.

i guess they can do whatever they want with it (ei. lets make a mountain range here, put some lamps there, etc., as the vision was rather vague

That sounds like things that God's Hands would be doing.

He seems to have been afraid of writing a mischaracterization. I think he wanted the parallel (or maybe "similarity") to be there but didn't want to push it too far.

Excellent point. I don't see that as affecting Eru as God, though. Eru is God, but there is much more of His nature revealed to us in the Bible. The books aren't about him, so they don't go into too much detail. I've read plenty of books about modern people, even modern religious people, and those books don't tell me nearly as much about those people's God as the Bible. Likewise with Tolkien's work.

Chicken.

Don't be a prat, that isn't your job.

God is God and I believe because we cannot know exactly what 'God' is, how can we know if a fictional God is the same?

I listen to this one blues song a lot, I have about sixty versions of it, and I may not know if it is about a real person but I can say with some certainty that Stagger lee is the same guy as Stackalee.

The Legendarium, from the Ainulindale down to the fall of Sauron was intended to be the history of this world, in a somewhat distant time B.C. This same world which, in Tolkien's faith, is under the dominion of God. Therefore, if the world in that time was under the dominion of Eru, then Eru must be God.

Eru and God are intended to be one and the same.

And I personally feel that no amount of "personal opinion" on the matter changes it. If you accept the existence of Frodo, Sam, and Gollum in Middle-Earth, you have to accept the existence of Eru- as the Judeo-Christian God within the story.

Do as you wish in real life, but within the confines of the story you have to, in my opinion, accept Eru, as presented, as God, if you are going to accept it at all.

Yes.

Is the question: do you think that Eru is God? Or is it: do you think Tolkien thought that Eru is God?

Good point. I see them as the same question since we are talking about things that Tolkien wrote. Tolkien's world, Tolkien's rules.

So how do we know whether we are reading the view of the translator or the original writer? And how do we know that the original writer was correct in their view of Eru?

Too meta.

As christian, it's obvious that Tolkien's view of a god is that of the Christian/Jewish(/Muslim/Buddhist etc. as all gods are the same according to many people) and he's been influenced by that of course.

NO. WRONG. God is God, the other ones are NOT God. That is the same sort of reasoning as saying the Black Numenoreans the worshipped Sauron/Morgoth were actually worshiping Eru, because it's all the same anyway. It is not the same, it is idolatry.

But if you say that Eru is God, you say that Tolkien tried to describe God through Eru Illuvatar

No you don't.

Eru might have become an equivalent to God

You do realize that equivalent means "the same as"? Right? Is equal to?

M-E is his kingdom, not Eru's domain even if Manwe subordinate to Iluvatar. There's no equivalent in Tolkien's religion.

It's like a ven diagram.

Also intersting is Melkor's role as the fallen angel, becoming the Dark Lord. In this case, there's a lot of similarities with Christianity and Satan's fall. He was one of the greatest angel's, one of those with most power and one of those closest to God, but was hungry for more power. Exactly like Melkor. They both fell and became to metaphor of Evil.

That is pretty interesting, isn't it? Pretty interesting indeed.

There's a downloadable issue of Vinyar Tengwar http://www.elvish.org/VT/VT43sample.pdf which contains Tolkien's translations of the Lord's Prayer & the Ave Maria. Tolkien uses 'Eru' to translate 'God'.

For what its worth - Tolkien seems to have considered the two words equivalent - only really stubborn & awkward people would deny that

+1

Stubborn and awkward it may be, but this only proves that Tolkien used that word in this linguistic experiment as it was as close as he could get in the Elvish language.

The whole thing is a linguistic experiment. He made the world for his language, not the other way around.

Is the character of "Deep Throat" from All the President's Men W. Mark Felt?

Ooo, that one is much better than what I came up with. Good form.

Done now, might come back later.

The Saucepan Man

11-18-2005, 04:07 AM

Certainly valid, Saucy, but hardly relevant to the question presented. I simple meant that in the context of the thread, it's meaningless. Such points are really just getting off topic. The question was "Is Eru God?" and the only person who would know for certain is Tolkien himself. Since he can't really answer that for us, we are left to discern what he thought on our own. Application of the text is a different subject altogether.Fea and Esty have already made the point, but just to reiterate the clarification which I extracted from Fordim:

At any rate, Esty has already pointed to what I meant with the question: what do you think? If the question were what did Tolkien think the answer would be pretty obviously "yes" -- Tolkien intended Eru to be the Christian God (as Tolkien saw him).

I see them as the same question since we are talking about things that Tolkien wrote. Tolkien's world, Tolkien's rules.I would disagree. The reader can, of course, interpret Eru on the basis of presumed authorial intention, but he or she is not inevitably bound (by the text or otherwise) to do so. A Muslim reader, for example, may well interpret Eru as Allah regardless of Tolkien's intentions and imply into Eru's character aspects of that God. Similarly, an Atheist reader, or one who has no strong religious convictions, is likely to view Eru as a purely fictional character, just like the other characters, with no equivalent in reality and interpret him solely on the basis of the material presented in the text. Neither, objectively, is wrong to do so. Why should "Tolkien's rules" bind the reader when they have no direct bearing on the story?

Rune Son of Bjarne

11-18-2005, 04:32 AM

I votet NO

Now I could give you a long explanation to why, but the previus posts seems to cover most of what I would have said.

This is the only thing I would like to add:

In Tolkiens world some of the valar has the abilety to create life! This is a very big diversion frome the christian god, (assuming it is this god we are talking about) as he alone could create. If I remember correctly Eru is not allgood and that kind of stuff, this means that he; unlike the christian god he is not one big self-contradiction. . .

Maybe Tolkien decidet to improve god in his books like he improved old tales and plays.

I apologies if this has allready been statet.

davem

11-18-2005, 05:01 AM

Some quotes from Tolkien & the Great War (from a post of mine on the Canonicity thread:

On to the TCBSfrom Tolkien & the Great War)

(p14)Tolkien once compared the TCBS to the pre-Raphaelites, probably in response to the Brotherhood's preoccupation with restoring Medieval values in Art.

(p56) Tolkien maintained that the society was 'a great idea which has never become quite articulate'. Its two poles, the moral & the aesthetic, could be complemantary if kept in balance...While the Great Twin Brethren (Tolkien & Wiseman) had discussed the fundamentals of existence, neither of them had done so with Gilson or Smith. As a result, Tolkien declared, the potential these four 'amazing' individuals contained in combination remained unbroached.'

(p105) Gilson proposed that feminism would help by banishing the view that 'woman was just an apparatus for man's pleasure'

Smith declared that, through Art, the four would have to leave the world better than they had found it. Their role would be ' to drive from life, letters, the satge & society that dabbling in & hankering after the unpleasant sides & incidents in life & nature which have captured the larger & worser tastes in Oxford, London & the world ... To re-establish sanity, cleanliness, & the love of real & true beauty in everyone's breast.

Gilson told Tolkien that, sitting in Routh Road... 'I suddenly saw the TCBS in a blaze of Light as a great Moral reformer ...Engalnd purified of its loathsome moral disease by the TCBS spirit. It is an enormous task & we shall not see it accomplished in our lifetime.

(p 122) Rob Gilson: I like to say & to hear it said & to feel boldly that the glory of beauty & order & joyful contentment in the universe is the presence of God....GB Smith was closely attentive to Tolkien's vision & in some measure shared it....Smith saw no demarcation between holiness & Faerie.

(p136) TCBSianism had come to mean fortitude & courage & alliance. ...But the TCBS had absorbed patriotic duty into its constitution not simply because its members were all patriots. the war mattered because it was being fought 'so England's self draw breath'; so that the inspirations of 'the real days' of peace might survive'...

Gilson: 'I have faith taht the TCBS may for itself - never for the world - thank God for this war some day.

Tolkien already believed that the terrros to come might serve him in the visionary work of his life - if he survived.

(p174) Tolkien: 'Regarding, presumably, those same 'idle chatterers', the journalists& their readers whom Smith execrated, he wrote that 'No filter of true sentiment, no ray of feeling for beauty, women, history or their country shall reach them again.'

(p180) Smith (after Rob Gilson's death in battle) 'The group was spiritual in character, 'an influence on the state of being', & as such it transcended mortality; it was 'as permanently inseperable as Thor & his hammer'. the influence, he said, was, 'a tradition, which forty years from now will still be as strong to us (if we are alive, & if we are not) as it is today.

(Tolkien) 'the TCBS may have been all we dreamt - & its work in the end be done by three or two or one survivor ... To this I now pin my hopes..'

(p253) Smith had wanted them to leave the world a better place than when they found it, to 're-establish sanity, cleanliness, & the love of real & true beauty' through art embodying TCBSian principles.

(p308) 'The 24 year old Tolkien had believed just as strongly in the dream shared by the TCBS, & felt that they 'had been granted some spark of fire ... that was destined to kindle a new light, or, what is the same thing, rekindle an old light in the world

(p309) But The Lord of the Rings, the masterpiece that was published a decade & a half later, stands as the fruition of the TCBSian dream, a light drawn from ancient sources to illumnate a darkening world'.

So right from the start of the Lost Tales, Tolkien is attempting to cast the TCBSian philosophy into artistic form. It culminates in the publication of LotR - at least during his lifetime. So, its not, or was never intended to be, simply a story. Its not an allegory in the strict sense, but the Legendarium could be seen as a mythologisation of TCBSianism vs the 'world'.

If there is an underlying 'truth' it is perhaps the 'truth' that the TCBS believed in - & so we're back to the question of what 'truth' Tolkien is revealing to us in his works - some kind of 'absolute', archetypal TRUTH, or simply what he felt to be true about the world, & we have to ask ourselves how close the two are.

Wherever we come down, its clear that whatever he was doing, he was attempting to do more than simply 'entertain' readers, because the TCBS was born in the hearts & minds of idealistic young men in peacetime & blasted apart on the Somme. Tolkien's mythology came into being during the horrors of mechanised warfare. But we enter it (or most of us do) as the TCBS would have originally, & it represents for us, as it would have for them, before the war, as a place of escape, of beauty, excitement, sadness, so we simply cannot read it as Tolkien would have read it himself when he came back to it to comment on its meaning for him. For us, it will have no 'meaning' beyond itself, & wahtever meaning we find in it for ourselves & our lives in this world, they will not, cannot, be the same as they were for Tolkien, so, our interpretations of it are as valid as his.

Which is not to say that he didn't intend us to find TCBSian values in it, & to find them more attractive than what was on offer in the 'primary world'. So, I'd say the book certainly contains deliberate 'meaning', that there is an intention on Tolkien's part that we should find in it waht he wants us to find, & also that he wants us to agree with him - but we never really could, because we're our own people, living our own lives, with our own experiences which we take to Middle Earth with us, & bring back out transformed.

We also have to be aware that in the early 'Faerie' language, which Tolkien had developed pre-WW1, the Faeries knew of monks & nuns, & had words for the Trinity, etc. Eru (or Enu as he was named then) Illuvatar was the God Tolkien worshipped right from the beginning, because the raison d'etre of the TCBS was the moral regeneration of England not 'entertainment', & that 'moral regeneration' would be achieved by a re-Christianisation of English society.

Of course, it could be argued that Tolkien left that desire behind as he grew older. Perhaps - though the translation of Christian prayers into Elvish calls this into question.

As to whether Tolkien was writing 'mythology': In the letter to Milton Waldman he stated that he had ndesired to write a mythology which he could dedicate to England (Carpenter was the one who started the whole 'mythology for England' idea, giving rise to the theory that Tolkien wanted to replace England's 'lost' mythology. Tolkien's (& by extension the TCBS's) motivation was very different. Replacing a 'lost' mythology is effectively a dead end. Tolkien had a purpose - he intended his 'mythology' to do something, & that 'something' was to 'heal' his country. The TCBS wanted England back in Church. Tolkien required Edith to become a Catholic before he would marry her; he worked hard to get Lewis 'into the fold'. His 'mythology' was intended as 'an (if not the) best introduction to the Mountains'.

Obviously, no-one has to take his writings in that way - he couldn't 'force' his readers, as he 'forced' his future wife, to become Catholics, or even simply Christians. Its clear, though, that he didn't think he was writing a mere fantasy.

Eru, for Tolkien was 'God' - though perhaps a 'God' that many would be uncomfortable with. GB Smith, after Rob Gilson's death, wrote a poem. Some lines, given by John Garth, sum up the TCBS-ite concept of God:

'Gilson's death is a 'sacrifice of blood outpoured' to a God whose purposes are utterly inscrutable & who 'only canst be glorified / By man's own passion & the supreme pain'.

I'd say that's Eru, not only the God Tolkien created for Middle-earth, but also the one he believed in. Then again, what other God could he have believed in, after what he'd gone through?

Lalwendë

11-18-2005, 06:45 AM

So Fordim now says we are voting about whether Eru is the God, not just Tolkien's God? That's what I've been arguing about all along. ;) Good. It's clear that Eru is influenced by Tolkien's interpretation of God (amongst many other things; we must not forget that Tolkien had other influences besides his own take on Catholicism), but then Tolkien's interpretation of God is in no way shared by everyone! Even amongst Catholics I know, they would have a different view of 'God' to that put forward in the character of Eru. I especially do not like the saying that Eru is the Christian God, as that is an incredibly sweeping statement.

Bêthberry

11-18-2005, 07:58 AM

quoting Tolkien and the Great War, on the TCGB

(p 122) Rob Gilson: I like to say & to hear it said & to feel boldly that the glory of beauty & order & joyful contentment in the universe is the presence of God....GB Smith was closely attentive to Tolkien's vision & in some measure shared it....Smith saw no demarcation between holiness & Faerie.

Not appropo of the discussion here, but this makes me wonder about the "allegory" or symbolism in Smith of Wootton Major. Shippey says Smith is Tolkien and I seem to recall most of the discussions on the Downs assume that as well. But perhaps that is an autobiographical fallacy once again?

If Smith = Tolkien, can we say Tolkien = Smith?

or, if Eru = God, can we say God = Eru ?

Gothmog

11-18-2005, 08:30 AM

burrahobbit: You do realize that equivalent means "the same as"? Right? Is equal to? Due to my lack of skill in English, this might have come out wrong. But according to my dictionary (I checked) equivalent is translated likvärdig/motsvarighet which can be meaning both equal to and (this is hard to explain!) corresponding to. I might have used the word in a way not intended, but what I meant to say is that Eru has become the correspondence to God in ME, but not God. Eru can be compared with God as they are both the Creator of "their" world and the highest power, but they're not the same. Hope that cleared things up and sorry for confusing you with my inferior language proficiency.

Feanor of the Peredhil

11-18-2005, 08:41 AM

You do realize that equivalent means "the same as"? Right? Is equal to?
But the thing to remember is that different things can easily add up to the same. You don't always require 'two' plus 'two' to equal four... remember that you can get the same exact answer with 'three' plus 'one', or 'four' plus 'zero', and if you feel like incorporating minus, you're possibilities are endless for combining different numbers (my metaphor, if it isn't clear, is that number are qualities/characteristics) and ending up with the same exact thing.

At any rate, Esty has already pointed to what I meant with the question: what do you think?
I re-quote that which has been quoted a lot already for posterity alone. Extra emphasis mine.

davem

11-18-2005, 08:47 AM

Not appropo of the discussion here, but this makes me wonder about the "allegory" or symbolism in Smith of Wootton Major. Shippey says Smith is Tolkien and I seem to recall most of the discussions on the Downs assume that as well. But perhaps that is an autobiographical fallacy once again?

If Smith = Tolkien, can we say Tolkien = Smith?

or, if Eru = God, can we say God = Eru ?

I don't know if its relevant that Tolkien chose the name Smith for the central character in his final original story - he didn't use Gilson or Wiseman for other characters. Certainly GB Smith's death lead him to state that 'something has gone crack', & he was deeply affected by his fellow TCBS-ite's death. IT confirmed that 'the Immortal Four' were anything but.

I suspect that Tolkien found himself in a very difficult position as regards his own faith. Certainly a 'Gentle Jesus, meek & mild' type of God was out of the question after the Somme, so Tolkien would have been in the position of either rejecting God altogether, or coming up with a version of God that he could accept/believe in who was both a loving, compassionate Creator but who, at the same time, could allow (& bring good out of) suffering & horror.

Why doesn't Eru intervene to prevent the suffering of His children in Middle-earth? That's as difficult a question to answer as 'Why didn't God intervene to prevent the suffering of Tolkien's generation in WW1?' Why did Eru choose Frodo to undertake an imossible task that would break him & end his life? Why would God stand back & allow the deaths of two out of Tolkien's three closest friends - friends who, like himself, were serving that same God, attempting to do His work by bringing the English people back to Him?

Tolkien believed God is a loving creator, with the best interests of his Creation at heart & with a deep love of His children, yet He stands back & allows them to suffer - why? Tolkien, it seems, never could answer that one - though he spent 60 years of his life attempting to do so through the means of his legendarium. In the end, while he couldn't provide an answer, what he did was to restate the question, lay it bare, confront us all with the mystery. The 'answer' he does offer: 'Its about Death, the inevitability of Death', Death is the 'Gift' of Eru to Men, & while we may not appreciate that 'Gift' now, in the end we will, & even the immortals will envy us for it' is not convincing, & its not what we get from reading LotR. What we get from LotR is not the 'satisfaction' that comes from recieving a pat answer to the mystery of existence, but rather the kind of satisfaction that the Hobbits got from 'seeing everything laid out fair & square with no contradictions'.

Tolkien sets out the mystery of our place in Creation, confronts us with the way things are. Eru doesn't intervene to prevent the sufferings of His children in Middle-earth, & God doesn't intervene to prevent our sufferings here. Both Smith & Gilson died horribly, & their potential was never achieved. Fact. Frodo was chosen to perform an impossible task & he lost his life as a direct result. Fact. The easy option would have been athiesm - but that let's God off the hook. Tolkien wouldn't do that, take that 'easy' option. Tolkien places God firmly in the driving seat, in the position of ultimate responsibility, & says 'This is how it is!' God/Eru exists, is an inescapable fact, & yet there is horrible suffering & waste.

There is a lot of speculation among the peoples of Middle-earth as to why 'bad stuff' happens, but we're never given a convincing, definite answer - because Tolkien was just a man, & didn't have one to give.

Roa_Aoife

11-18-2005, 09:03 AM

Hold the phone, people. You want to argue how compatible Eru is with everyone's personal veiws of the Christian God?!?!? *deep breath*

So, just let me clarify, given the evidence provided (ie. the quotes from Tolkien, his own writings, etc,) can we all agree that Tolkien most likely viewed Eru as God?

The problem with the arguement that is developing is that it will never end. Everyone, even Christians, have different veiws of God. I have seen two Christians argue the nature of God, both throwing bible verses at each other, with out ever reaching a conclusion. That's why we so many different sects, (Baptists, Calvinist, Methodists, Lutherans, etc, and don't get me started going down the list of different Catholic sects.)

My word, people, are we here to discuss Tolkien's works or personal philosophy? If it's the latter, we'll be arguing till Kingdom Come. (Religious reference definitely intended.) That is, you'll be arguing, because there's no way I'm getting dragged in to that.

And no Fae, I've made it clear that I'm not Tolkien at least twice in this thread.

Feanor of the Peredhil

11-18-2005, 09:12 AM

And no Fae, I've made it clear that I'm not Tolkien at least twice in this thread.
It was rethorical and not directed to you personally. First note that I'm a smart-alec, but then remember that behind the dry humor, I have a point.

davem

11-18-2005, 09:29 AM

My word, people, are we here to discuss Tolkien's works or personal philosophy? If it's the latter, we'll be arguing till Kingdom Come. (Religious reference definitely intended.) That is, you'll be arguing, because there's no way I'm getting dragged in to that.

Exactly. Tolkien clearly believed Eru=God (the 'version' he believed in). Simply saying 'Well, Eru isn't at all like God, so there!' is running away from the real issue. Tolkien is saying some very definite (& perhaps very uncomfortable) things about God. Aren't they worthy of consideration at least? Do we learn anything at all about God from what Tolkien says about Eru?

Should we put Tolkien in the dock?

The Saucepan Man

11-18-2005, 09:51 AM

The problem with the arguement that is developing is that it will never end. Everyone, even Christians, have different veiws of God.But surely there is merit in discussing both how Tolkien's portrayal of Eru affects our own personal spiritual beliefs and how such personal beliefs affect our response to Eru and, in many ways therefore, our approach to the world that Tolkien has created? It doesn't have to be an argument if people are prepared to acknowledge and respect that other hold beliefs different to their own.

And it seems to me, in this regard, that the points made by davem in his long post above are central to the discussion in this regard. The points that he makes concerning suffering, together with wider points concerning the nature of good and evil, are a large part of the reason why neither Eru nor the Christian God (in the broad sense) fit my conception of God (assuming that there is such a being).

But, predictably, davem and I are at odds on the following issue:

Simply saying 'Well, Eru isn't at all like God, so there!' is running away from the real issue.Simply because I don't accept Eru and/or Tolkien's God as my God does not mean that I am running away from the issue. On the contrary, his portrayal of God in Middle-earth, combined with his other writings (Letters etc) and fuelled by the many discussions that I have participated in here on this issue, have caused me to think very deeply about my own spiritual beliefs and attitude toward God, good and evil etc. I have not come to share Tolkien's beliefs nor have I been struck by any sudden revelations, but that does not mean that the process has not been useful (to me at least).

Hookbill the Goomba

11-18-2005, 10:03 AM

Although Tolkien said that God was far too complex for him to put into words, I think it is plain that Eru is supposed to be God. The story of Ainulindele (sorry if I've spelt that wrong) bares similarities to some Biblical accounts. Firstly, creation being an offspring of Gods thought is a concept I have heard and bares resemblance to the Ainur. Also the way the Ainur sing to Eru is like onto how the Angels sing onto God, and also Melkor's discord is like Satan's rebellion.
I do not claim to be any great Tolkien scholar, or even Bible scholar, but these things seem to jump out at me. So from this I gathered that Eru was, in Tolkien's intentions, God. *shrug*

Roa_Aoife

11-18-2005, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man
why neither Eru nor the Christian God (in the broad sense) fit my conception of God (assuming that there is such a being).

Well, then, I feel the need to point out the original point of the thread:

Originally posted by Fordim Hedgethistle
Is Eru God? Please note that the question isn't, "Is Eru the god of Middle-Earth?" (he pretty clearly is) but, is Eru the Elvish name for God (Jehovah)?

There's a lot hanging on this question: if you believe that Eru is God, then you are saying that the moral "rules" of M-E are Christian. If you believe that Eru is not God, then those "rules" are something else.

The question was is “Eru equivalent to the Judea-Christian God?” not “Is Eru equivalent to your view of God?”

And, I said before, of course there is merit in discussing how this applies to your own spiritual growth. That’s just not what we’re supposed to be discussing here.

Feanor of the Peredhil

11-18-2005, 10:41 AM

The question was is “Eru equivalent to the Judea-Christian God?” not “Is Eru equivalent to your view of God?”
The problem with simplifying it that much is that even within the group of people who believe in the Judea-Christian God, everybody still perceives Him differently. Throw in non-Christians as well as people who are simply not religious at all and you've got a the most fantastic makings for a long and enlightening discussion. You see, before you can decide if Eru is equivalent to the Judea-Christian God, you've got to figure out just who or what the Judea-Christian God is. It's like staring into shadow and trying to compare a hidden object to the one in your hand. You can't make a blanket statement about it. You can't even make a simple statement until you get some sort of idea of what it is that's just out of view.

alatar

11-18-2005, 10:47 AM

The story of Ainulindele (sorry if I've spelt that wrong) bares similarities to some Biblical accounts. Firstly, creation being an offspring of Gods thought is a concept I have heard and bares resemblance to the Ainur. Also the way the Ainur sing to Eru is like onto how the Angels sing onto God, and also Melkor's discord is like Satan's rebellion.

Not sure where this fits in, but consider: if your knowledge/experience/personal beliefs include a 'fallen angel' and 'angels singing', etc, and if you were to read the Silmarillion, most definitely you would compare the two ideas and say, "these are similar." If you had the same knowledge and read a car repair manual, you would have a tough time finding the same nodes of concordance (though I find car repair a great way to induce prayer ;) ).

Another example: The SpM and I both are male, are fathers and have posted pictures of ourselves holding our children in the picture forum. From some distant POV that makes SpM = alatar. Now, zooming in a bit, you would see that he and I differ in many many ways. Even if we were clones, we still would be different at some level. And some of my posts would indicate that I'm not always running on the same brain cells...

Now, just because the two ideas (for example, those expressed in the Silmarillion and the Christian Bible/theology) have the same words, themes, etc does not make them equal, especially as we humans are great at seeing patterns where none truly exist.

Apologies to SpM in advance for any inferred insult ("he compared me to himself - the nerve! ;) ).

Roa_Aoife

11-18-2005, 10:48 AM

Excellent point, Fae. My apologies for not clarifying my point better. I still say that we should go with author's intent on this one. What I meant by my post to Saucy was that things were getting too far off base from the original idea.

Which I'm staying on what Tolkien thought, by the way. Thank you for summing up my point. ;)

Hookbill the Goomba

11-18-2005, 10:59 AM

Now, just because the two ideas (for example, those expressed in the Silmarillion and the Christian Bible/theology) have the same words, themes, etc does not make them equal, especially as we humans are great at seeing patterns where none truly exist.

But, Tolkien being a Christian, do you not think that he may have deliberately put these parallels into the story? I think that he wanted the Christian message in his legend and, as I mentioned before, as Middle Earth was supposed to be a mythology for this world, he meant Eru to be the God of this world. Hence the parallels.
That's how I see it anyway.

The Saucepan Man

11-18-2005, 11:04 AM

The question was is “Eru equivalent to the Judea-Christian God?” not “Is Eru equivalent to your view of God?”No. The question (as clarified) was "Is Eru, in your opinion, God"? Fordim went on to reason that, if one believes that Eru is God, then the moral "rules" of Middle-earth must be Christian. In my opinion, that reasoning is defective because it relies on the assumption that God is the Christian God (whatever that involves - see below). And that is an assumption which I do not accept.

In any event, how can one answer the question as you have intepreted it given that, taking the Judeo-Christian God alone, there are widely differing interpretations of his nature? A fact that is supported by many of the responses to date on this very thread. In my opinion, one can only answer on the basis of one's personal view of God. Eru does not match up to my personal conception of God, and therefore my answer to the question can only be "no".

And, I said before, of course there is merit in discussing how this applies to your own spiritual growth. That’s just not what we’re supposed to be discussing here.Ouch! :eek: ;)

You seek to limit the nature of the discussion far too narrowly which, in my opinion, would be to its detriment. As should be clear from my response above, I believe that my comments are entirely relevant to the discussion at hand.

And even were they not, I would contend that they are a valid digression from the core topic. :p

Edit: Cross-posted with Fea (and others) who makes a similar point.

Edit 2:

Apologies to SpM in advance for any inferred insultNone taken, old chap. Glad to be of service. Mind you, in light of our many similarities, you probably knew that already ...

The Saucepan Man

11-18-2005, 11:12 AM

What I meant by my post to Saucy was that things were getting too far off base from the original idea.Of course, that brings up the question of what the purpose of a Tolkien-related discussion forum is. Is it solely to further our understanding of Tolkien and his works? Or can it also serve to enhance our understanding of ourselves and others ...?

But don't worry. Before I get re-named the Wormcan Man, I'll readily acknowledge that that issue is getting widely off-topic. :D

Gurthang

11-18-2005, 11:20 AM

Well, I can see this is going around in circles. I know I'm not the first to say it, but we're debating what the question is, rather than possible answers. Well, you want to debate questions, let us debate questions.

OK, here's one for you all to consider:

Is Eru God? Please note that the question isn't, "Is Eru the god of Middle-Earth?" (he pretty clearly is) but, is Eru the Elvish name for God (Jehovah)?

There's a lot hanging on this question: if you believe that Eru is God, then you are saying that the moral "rules" of M-E are Christian. If you believe that Eru is not God, then those "rules" are something else.

I did a search for threads on this topic but kept getting messages that the search terms I used (Eru, God, is eru god, what is eru) are "too common": so obviously there's a lot of material out there already. If you know of a thread post it here please so we can all review it.

In this post, I see six possible questions.

Is Eru God?
I'll answer this last.

Is Eru the god of Middle-Earth?
Obviously yes.

Is Eru the Elvish name for God?
Considering that Tolkien translated prayers into Elvish and used Eru for God points to the fact that Eru means God.

Is Eru the Elvish name for God (Jehovah)?
This may look like the same question, but is entirely different. Eru might very well mean God in Elvish, but that doesn't point to it meaning God(Jehovah) exclusively. Iluvatar is truly God in M-E, and so will be called Eru.

Think about our own world today: Allah vs. Jehovah(I'm using Jehovah to avoid confusion.). Muslims call Allah God. Christians call Jehovah God. The names might be the same, so does that make them the same? I'd say no, because there are fundamental differences between them.

Likewise in Iluvatar vs. Jehovah. Iluvatar is Eru(which means God), in which case Jehovah could also be called Eru. But that does not make Iluvatar and Jehovah the same. It simply means that Tolkien translated God into Elvish rather than translating Jehovah.
Do you believe that Eru is God and so Christian morals are in M-E.
This question is flawed in my opinion. (And I know it is not directly asked, but it was implied.) By what I said above, Eru(Iluvatar) does not mean God(Jehovah), but I still hold that Christian morals are in M-E. But that violates the nature of the question.

Do you believe that Eru is not God and so Christian morals are not in M-E?
Pretty much the same as above.

Now. To answer the first question: "Is Eru God?". God translates to Eru, so in that sense, yes. But I do not believe that Jehovah would translate to Iluvatar? Absolutely Not!

Roa_Aoife

11-18-2005, 11:33 AM

I'm going to leave it at this. We all seem to be in agreement that to Tolkien, Eru=God. I haven't seen that point disputed in sometime, so I will consider the point conceded. If anyone wants to further discuss this point, of course, I'd be happy to. :)

As to my personal veiws, Eru, to me anyway, seems just vague enough to fit almost anyone's veiw of God. (With regards to Estelyn, who made some very good points right off the bat.) As to Fae and Saucy, is it just me or does it seem that we're agruing the same point in different directions?

Thankyou, Gurthang, for pointing out that we're debating the questions rather than the answers. So perhaps we aren't asking the right question at all. Perhaps what we should be asking is, "What do you get when you multiply six by seven?"

Hookbill the Goomba

11-18-2005, 11:36 AM

Gurthang, may I ask a seventh?

7. Did Tolkien intend Eru to be read as God (Jehovah)?

I think that is the real question here. Otherwise, it seems to me that we may be delving into the realms of "canonicity, the book or the reader" which is a whole other thread of discussion.

davem

11-18-2005, 11:43 AM

Gurthang, may I ask a seventh?

7. Did Tolkien intend Eru to be read as God (Jehovah)?

I don't think he even 'considered' it - it was so obvious to him that they were the same that he would assume his readers would understand that. I suspect this whole debate would seem superfluous to him.

The Saucepan Man

11-18-2005, 12:03 PM

I don't think he even 'considered' it - it was so obvious to him that they were the same that he would assume his readers would understand that.So he only ever contemplated Christians reading his tales? Or did he expect non-Christian readers to accept his "version" of God and thus draw nothing from it relevant to their own beliefs? Is this the same man who readily accepted the applicability of his stories in ways that he did not necessarily anticipate or intend?

Somehow, I see him as being more progressive than that. But perhaps I am labouring under a misapprehension ...

davem

11-18-2005, 12:23 PM

So he only ever contemplated Christians reading his tales? Or did he expect non-Christian readers to accept his "version" of God and thus draw nothing from it relevant to their own beliefs?

Think of his background & the society he lived in, the friends he had (Lewis, Barfield, Williams, etc). I don't think he contemplated a wide 'readership' at all - most of the time during the writing of it & in the years he spent trying to get it published - he felt it would never be read by 'the public' at all. In short, he wasn't writing for others, but principally for himself.

The Saucepan Man

11-18-2005, 12:40 PM

Tolkien had a purpose - he intended his 'mythology' to do something, & that 'something' was to 'heal' his country. The TCBS wanted England back in Church.

I don't think he contemplated a wide 'readership' at all - most of the time during the writing of it & in the years he spent trying to get it published - he felt it would never be read by 'the public' at all. In short, he wasn't writing for others, but principally for himself. :confused:

:p ;)

Fordim Hedgethistle

11-18-2005, 12:47 PM

7. Did Tolkien intend Eru to be read as God (Jehovah)?

Oooooo...now that's a way of thinking about this that had not occured to me: love it! I think that there are probably several answers:

In the Sil I think that Eru clearly was Tolkien's 'version' of God and was meant to be taken in that light.

But I'm not so sure about LotR where, of course, Eru never really appears 'directly', only by very distant inference through the shadowy allusions to Elbereth et al who "dwell in the West". And here I think we see an example of Tolkien's stated preference for applicability over allegory insofar as he decided to leave his story, and his world, more 'open'. Tolkien was no fool and would have been more than aware that:

1) a lot of people in the world do not believe in God

2) a lot of people in the world do not believe in the Christian God

3) a lot of people in the world do not believe in the Catholic God

4) most people in the world do not believe in Tolkien's version of the Catholic God, whom he has emodied in the tale as Eru.

To include Eru overtly would have immediately put a gloss on the events that force readers down paths they don't want to go, or creates a barrier that they have to contend with.

So while I think Eru in the Silmarillion is pretty cleary 'supposed' (by Tolkien) to be interpreted as God, I think the shadowy "power" or "forces" at work 'behind the scenes' in LotR is 'supposed' by Tolkien to be ambiguous enough for different readers to respond to in their own way. What I see Tolkien striving for in LotR is not a particular sense of the Creator/God but for a more impersonal sense of the sacred: the landscape of Middle-Earth, the narrative itself, the peoples that we meet, the 'plan' that seems to guide history, the legends and history that the Elves inhabit all give off the odour of sanctity, even perhaps of divinity, without locating that sense within any single form or version of a god.

Roa_Aoife

11-18-2005, 12:50 PM

We're back on topic! Yay!

You make a good point, Saucy, but allow me to explain from the perspective of one who has been raised in a Christian home. Is it really so difficult to believe that a person may take for granted a thought that is central to his ideaology, philosophy, and general out look on life?

I'll use a real life example: At one point, I was discussing future plans with an Agnostic friend of mine. She asked me what I was looking for in my wedding, should I ever have one. My requirements were simple- any month but May, and my uncle to serve as pastor. This confused my friend greatly, and she asked what a pastor would be doing there! She hadn't even considered a Christian wedding in a church, and I hadn't considered anything but. This isn't because I assumed she would have these things to (I knew better), but because I took my faith for granted. To me, it was obvious, as the connection between Eru and God would be obvious to Tolkien.

And as davem pointed out- Tolkien never really expected the books to be so popular.

Hookbill the Goomba

11-18-2005, 12:58 PM

A Thought has just occurred to me.

What I thought of was this:
Tolkien wanted to write a new Mythology. He loved all the old mythologies in Norse and such. Most of those had multiple gods (like Thor and the crew) so he incorporated this into Middle Earth in the Valar. He probably wanted to keep alive to the minds of his audience that there was One God and so he incorporated Eru to be the master creator and satisfy both the idea of the multiple gods and the One God.
You could probably say that this would mean that Eru was not God (Jehovah) but I beg to differ. I think that Tolkien's Christian beliefs would have lead him to use Eru as Jehovah and so, perhaps, spread the Christian message.
Any thoughts?

Formendacil

11-18-2005, 01:00 PM

Is Eru the Elvish name for God (Jehovah)?
This may look like the same question, but is entirely different. Eru might very well mean God in Elvish, but that doesn't point to it meaning God(Jehovah) exclusively. Iluvatar is truly God in M-E, and so will be called Eru.

Think about our own world today: Allah vs. Jehovah(I'm using Jehovah to avoid confusion.). Muslims call Allah God. Christians call Jehovah God. The names might be the same, so does that make them the same? I'd say no, because there are fundamental differences between them.

Likewise in Iluvatar vs. Jehovah. Iluvatar is Eru(which means God), in which case Jehovah could also be called Eru. But that does not make Iluvatar and Jehovah the same. It simply means that Tolkien translated God into Elvish rather than translating Jehovah.

Some interesting thoughts there, Gurthang, but I believe that your definitions are flawed.

First of all, Eru is not simply Elvish for "God". It is Elvish for "the One". (See the definition in the Silmarillion of the root "er", which is defined as meaning "one, alone"). In this context, it is more similar to Yahweh (also translated as Jehovah), meaning "I am" than it is to "God".

Next, Iluvatar means "All-father", and is thus much closer in meaning to our refering to God as "Father".

Finally, your reference to "Allah" is also somewhat flawed, since "Allah" is simply Arabic for "The God".

Furthermore, many Christians, Catholics anyway, will tell you that the Muslims believe in the same God as us, they simply don't have the same beliefs concerning how to live under Him here on earth.

davem

11-18-2005, 01:01 PM

:confused:

Taking the quotes out of context - I can see why you're so successful ;)

The first quote was regarding Tolkien's original motivation pre- & during WW1, the second about his state of mind during the writing of LotR.

The Saucepan Man

11-18-2005, 01:02 PM

What I see Tolkien striving for in LotR is not a particular sense of the Creator/God but for a more impersonal sense of the sacred: the landscape of Middle-Earth, the narrative itself, the peoples that we meet, the 'plan' that seems to guide history, the legends and history that the Elves inhabit all give off the odour of sanctity, even perhaps of divinity, without locating that sense within any single form or version of a god.Agreed.

In the Sil I think that Eru clearly was Tolkien's 'version' of God and was meant to be taken in that light.But why would Tolkien not apply the same considerations that you set out at 1 to 4 in your post equally to the Silmarillion? While writing LotR, he anticipated his Silmarillion stories being published. Are you suggesting that he viewed the Silmarillion tales as being for a "specialist market" while LotR would have wider appeal? That does not come across in his Letters, those dealing with the possibility of both works being published, which suggest that he regarded them as intrinsic to each other.

Roa_Aoife

11-18-2005, 01:06 PM

I agree with Saucy, but in the other direction. If it is clear that Eru is God in the Sil, then Eru must still be God in LoTR, not the other way around.

The Saucepan Man

11-18-2005, 01:07 PM

The first quote was regarding Tolkien's original motivation pre- & during WW1, the second about his state of mind during the writing of LotR.Fair 'nuff. :D

Although, given the success of The Hobbit, he must have had some conception while writing LotR that it would attract a modest readership, at the very least, and that this would most probably include Atheists, Agnostics and Jews, if not those of other faiths.

Fordim Hedgethistle

11-18-2005, 01:19 PM

I agree with Saucy, but in the other direction. If it is clear that Eru is God in the Sil, then Eru must still be God in LoTR, not the other way around.

I agree, but the question I was addressing above was Hookbill's neat number 7 -- how did Tolkien intend for the reader to understand Eru? What I'm suggesting is that as Tolkien wrote the Sil he was thinking "Eru is God and the reader should be able to see that clearly" but when he was writing LotR he was thinking "Eru is God, but I'm going to leave it a bit fuzzy for the reader so he or she can find his or her own way into the text."

As to why he did it this way Saucy, I don't know, but I see no problem in it insofar as he was writing two different books: one more 'allegorical' and one more 'applicable'. He was striving for different effects in each so it makes sense to me that he would have different approaches to how he crafted them.

Mithalwen

11-18-2005, 01:19 PM

Do you believe that Eru is God and so Christian morals are in M-E.
This question is flawed in my opinion. (And I know it is not directly asked, but it was implied.) By what I said above, Eru(Iluvatar) does not mean God(Jehovah), but I still hold that Christian morals are in M-E. But that violates the nature of the question.

Do you believe that Eru is not God and so Christian morals are not in M-E?
Pretty much the same as above.

I don't see how "Christian Morals" come into it - I rather think that the morals so described may be held by those of other religions or none.

alatar

11-18-2005, 01:21 PM

Furthermore, many Christians, Catholics anyway, will tell you that the Muslims believe in the same God as us, they simply don't have the same beliefs concerning how to live under Him here on earth.

Note that contrary to what people believe, the gods of the People of the Book (Jews, Christians, Muslims) are irreconciliably different. And as someone once said, words mean exactly what you pour into them. You say "dog" and everyone pictures their favorite pooch. What we tend to forget is that my dog is a border collie and yours is a beagle.

DarkLordSauron

11-18-2005, 01:53 PM

Eru made the world but didn't he let manwe take over so isn't manwe the god

davem

11-18-2005, 01:55 PM

As to why he did it this way Saucy, I don't know, but I see no problem in it insofar as he was writing two different books: one more 'allegorical' and one more 'applicable'. He was striving for different effects in each so it makes sense to me that he would have different approaches to how he crafted them.
Ok, but this thread is discussing Eru & as Eru doesn't appear in LotR I'm not sure it gets us very far.

Hookbill the Goomba

11-18-2005, 02:30 PM

Eru made the world but didn't he let manwe take over so isn't manwe the god

Not realy. If someone makes something but lets someone else look after it, does that make the look-after-er the creator? No.

Gurthang

11-18-2005, 02:39 PM

I don't see how "Christian Morals" come into it - I rather think that the morals so described may be held by those of other religions or none.

I'm not sure why they come into play either. I was just responding to what Fordim stated in his first post of the thread.

Roa_Aoife

11-18-2005, 02:45 PM

Mithalwen

11-18-2005, 02:57 PM

I'm not sure why they come into play either. I was just responding to what Fordim stated in his first post of the thread.

Sorry - that wasn't meant to be personal - I was having trouble finding the original quote. :(

Fordim Hedgethistle

11-18-2005, 02:58 PM

Note that contrary to what people believe, the gods of the People of the Book (Jews, Christians, Muslims) are irreconciliably different.

Actually, the view of God (the Father) is the same for all three. The view of Jesus is where things start to sperate. But we really, really shouldn't get into that.

Not realy. If someone makes something but lets someone else look after it, does that make the look-after-er the creator? No.

Excellent points all, but let's try to avoid going down this particular road shall we? The Wight himself in all his wisdom has declared that the Downs is here to discuss matters Tolkien-related and that all discussions theological, political and social should take place privately. I don't know about the rest of you but I tremble in my gibbet at the notion of being Barrow Wighted, so let's keep this on point....

Gothmog

11-18-2005, 03:08 PM

Excellent points all, but let's try to avoid going down this particular road shall we? The Wight himself in all his wisdom has declared that the Downs is here to discuss matters Tolkien-related and that all discussions theological, political and social should take place privately. I don't know about the rest of you but I tremble in my gibbet at the notion of being Barrow Wighted, so let's keep this on point.... True! And you better watch out, I got an unsigned neg rep for saying the same thing as Roa_Aoife said in his post. Whoever gave me it, I would be glad if you could pm me and explain to me if there was more to that neg rep than personal feelings for that subject. Sorry if I'm off-topic...

Mithalwen:I don't see how "Christian Morals" come into it - I rather think that the morals so described may be held by those of other religions or none. I couldn't agree more. What in the ME rules of morale makes it Christian? What separates it from what is normally considered good or bad, all over the world? I think the morale of ME reflects common sense and a view of things that isn't related to religion.

Bergil

11-18-2005, 03:31 PM

A lot of you seem to be mentally making tolkien into a demented Spanish Inquisition type. I beleive that's the worst villan in the world, the one who wants to control the thought process as well as the deeds. if your opinion of him was that low, you wouldn't be here. You're all very brave, insulting a dead man.

Estelyn Telcontar

11-18-2005, 03:49 PM

Bergil, I have been keeping a close eye on this discussion, and I cannot see where you take your opinion that anyone is attempting to insult Tolkien. The question here, and most have understood it well enough to differentiate, concerns personal opinions on a character that he wrote. Each and every member is entitled to express his/her opinion, and it is expected that all do it in a polite way. Should the discussion get too far afield, one of the moderators or administrators will step in. That has not been necessary yet, and knowing my fellow Downers, I doubt that it will be.

Mister Underhill

11-18-2005, 05:16 PM

This is a little off-center, but one thing that fascinates me about the theology/morality of LotR is that Tolkien very deliberately made an effort to exclude overt, direct links to Christian religion:
...there was and is all the Arthurian world, but powerful as it is, it is imperfectly naturalized, associated with the soil of Britain but not with English; and does not replace what I felt to be missing. For one thing its 'faerie' is too lavish, and fantastical, incoherent and repetitive. For another and more important thing: it is involved in, and explicitly contains the Christian religion.

For reasons which I will not elaborate, that seems to me fatal. Myth and fairy-story must, as all art, reflect and contain in solution elements of moral and religious truth (or error), but not explicit, not in the known form of the primary 'real' world.

--Letter 131

I would claim, if I did not think it presumptuous in one so ill-instructed, to have as one object the elucidation of truth, and the encouragement of good morals in this real world, by the ancient device of exemplifying them in unfamiliar embodiments, that may tend to 'bring them home'.

--Letter 153It's interesting to me that he found, or sensed, that the best way to talk about the truths that he held so dear was to not talk about them, if you take my meaning. To portray the underlying truth without the trapping, or in a different trapping. I don't know what that has to do with this discussion, just something that comes up for me as I read through the thread.

Also, I think some posters are taking the idea of the legendarium as pre-history a little too far. At some point you are forced to consider Tolkien's stories as "alternate history", no? I mean we have two creation stories at the very least which aren't reconcilable. There's no way for the Silmarillion to pre-date Genesis: "In the beginning..."

Bêthberry

11-18-2005, 08:51 PM

I mean we have two creation stories at the very least which aren't reconcilable. There's no way for the Silmarillion to pre-date Genesis: "In the beginning..."

Nice use of the letters, Mr. U. Did you use those on the Canonicity thread? I think this is a very important aspect of Tolkien, that he wanted active, or perhaps interactive, readers, rather than passive ones.

But as to two creation stories, actually Genesis itself has two, or at least two accounts of primeval time, and I have always rather thought of the Ainulindale and the Valaquenta similarly. So that makes four. :)

Fordim Hedgethistle

11-18-2005, 10:01 PM

But as to two creation stories, actually Genesis itself has two, or at least two accounts of primeval time, and I have always rather thought of the Ainulindale and the Valaquenta similarly. So that makes four. :)

Heck, throw in John 1:1 and you have yet another version of the creation story, one that I think particularly pertinent and resonant with Tolkien: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God".

But I digress.

It's interesting to me that he found, or sensed, that the best way to talk about the truths that he held so dear was to not talk about them, if you take my meaning. To portray the underlying truth without the trapping, or in a different trapping.

Misty Undy: I think this is what I was trying to get at myself when I wrote above about Tolkien's having given his story the 'odour' of the sacred, but you do it much better. Reading LotR always reminds me of a particular fish pond in Istanbul -- bear with me. The fish pond dates back to Persian Empire when it was said that the fish were sacred to the water deity of Asia Minor. Then Greece conquered the city, renamed it Byzantium, and the pond was full of fish sacred to Poseiden. The Greece fell to Rome, the city was once again renamed Constantinople and the fish were sacred to Neptune. Then Rome became Christian and the fish were the descendants of those caught by the apostles and which Christ had used for his miracle of the loaves and the fishes. Then the Ottomans conquered the city, renamed it Istanbul, and the fish suddenly lived in a pond that had been created by a miracle of Allah... The point being that even though different beliefs and creeds have come and gone, that particular place (which is quite beautiful) has throughout the millenia maintained a sense of sacredness. The people who have claimed it may have disagreed as to which god or God it was who had sanctified the place, but they all agreed that it was a holy place.

Middle-Earth seems to me to be very much that kind of a place.

mark12_30

11-19-2005, 05:05 AM

Tolkien created his myth to predate the old testament; thus, it is no surprise that it presents an even more limited view of the creator. This does not lessen who the creator really is, only the knowledge of the creator amongst his creatures. Therefore, I can see Tolkien deciding that the people of Middle Earth, predating the old testament, wouldn't have knowledge of a creator who wanted a personal relationship with his creatures.

lmp beat me to it (not hard these days.) To me Eru looks like pre-Abraham Yahweh. Maybe even Pre-Noah Yahweh; that'll take some thought. (Enoch???)

Given that in the discussion between Finrod and Andreth in HoME (as I imperfectly recall) Eru is said to be planning to appear in mannish form, clearly the incarnation is far in the future. But the similarities are, to me, convincing.

No vote til I finish pondering, though.

mark12_30

11-19-2005, 09:08 AM

(I'm still reading, top of page three, but...)

Brillinant question from Angry Hill Troll: Digressing a little bit, here's a philosophical question to ponder (I don't really have an answer for this one ;) ): If two religions both believe in a single, omnipotent and omniscient God, do they necessarily believe in the same God (with differences of opinion of His characteristics, actions, and expectations of humans), or do they believe in different gods whose existences are mutully exclusive?

This doesn't strictly apply to the poll question, since worship of Eru and reverence for the Valar aren't (to my knowledge) religious practice in our world.

My opinion is this: It depends entirely on the religions in question.

For example, if comparing the Jewish God YHWH, and the Trinitarian Christian God, in my opinion, the two religions worship one and the same God, although they perceive him differently and have different expectations. Still, they may speak with each other regarding God and still be talking about the same person. The two understandings share fundamentally similar aspects and so are very compatible. Using the analogy of perspective, the two religions can be described as seeing/ viewing/ observing/ understanding the same God from different angles. The understandings are not incompatible, especially in terms of expectations (God's expectations of man.)

However, this does not apply to all religions. Even different monotheistic religions do not express their understanding of God in the same, or similar, or compatible ways, nor do the expectations (that God has of man) turn out to be similar. Fundamental differences include a man's freedom of conscience.

For example. Jews and Christians, by and large, may disagree vigourously with one another, but ***if*** each of the two religions is faithfully followed (big if, I know) differences of opinions do not (perhaps I should say, Should Not) result in violence. Conversions by the sword are not in accordance with the founder's principles, and therefore with the religion's perception of God's expectations. An individual is free to choose or reject God, and he is responsible for his own choice. However, other monotheistic religions are not this way: differences of opinioin can, and do, result in violence ***within the accepted framework of that particular faith***-- conversions at swordpoint are not at variance with the founder's principles, and therefore with the religions's perception of God's expectations. To me this implies a fundamental difference in the God being considered.

This is a large part of why I do consider Eru to be both YHWH and the Trinitarian God-- the expectations and values placed on men are similar. Men are percieved as being "in control of their own destiny", having free will and making their own choices, their actions having true consequences. However, they cannot (by deciding and acting ) ultimately change the will and plans of Eru, any more than Melkor could. This has a similar feel to both the Christian Trinitarian God, and the Jewish YHWH. But it is quite different from many other religious concepts of God. I think that percieved personality is a large part of this whole consideration.

Another for instance: whimsy isn't a part of this picture, as it would be for Jove, Zeus, and other "primary" gods in some panthestic religions. Both the Christian Trinitarian God and the Jewish YHWH act consistently with their own plan. Man may or may not understand some part of this plan, and this confusion may result in mannish accusations of God or YHWH being whimsical; but it is not so; we simply do not understand, do not see "the entire music." Eru is similar.

mark12_30

11-19-2005, 09:38 AM

As christian, it's obvious that Tolkien's view of a god is that of the Christian/Jewish(/Muslim/Buddhist etc. as all gods are the same according to many people) and he's been influenced by that of course.

NO. WRONG. God is God, the other ones are NOT God. That is the same sort of reasoning as saying the Black Numenoreans the worshipped Sauron/Morgoth were actually worshiping Eru, because it's all the same anyway. It is not the same, it is idolatry.

Idolatry or just plain confusion. For it to be idolatry (in the Christian sense), one would have to be aware that the god in question wasn't YHWH and worship it anyway. That's why the first two commandments are to separate ones; 1) No other gods before me; 2) no idols. The reasoning for the wrong choice can vary.

It seems like splitting hairs and in some sense it is, I guess. But it also seems to me like Tolkien set it up pretty cleary, so that those who worshipped Sauron (even in unintentional confusion, thinking him good) were led to do what they should have known was wrong (human sacrifie, etc) and so should have realised that worshipping Sauron was wrong. In that case I would have called it idolatry.

Why should "Tolkien's rules" bind the reader when they have no direct bearing on the story?

Once more, the canonicity thread reappears, continued here, again, still.

Folwren

11-19-2005, 11:16 AM

There's been so much writing since I was last on here that I don't really want to read it all. So I won't, but I would like to say one last thing before going.

It is my understanding that Tolkien wrote about M-E and fashioned it so that Great Britain could have a mythological backround. If this is the case, this would be far before Jesus Christ was ever around, but also before anyone ever knew about God.

If that is the case, then I don't believe that Eru would be the equivilant of the Christain God, Jehovah. Tolkien (don't anybody leap on me because I'm about to write as if I actually knew what he thought, which I don't) wanted one god over all of Middle-Earth because it just made sense. However, he put many other gods below himself to take care and form the Earth - these gods, or Valar, were the gods of water, air, plants, and all the other things, much like the Romans and Greeks had, or the Indians and Chineese and whoever else have mythology and made up gods. I mean, he wanted his mythology to be like the other old ones, that is to say, he fashioned them after the old works (many titles have been brought up here).

And I'm not writing this down very well, but see here. God doesn't apoint different angels over all the different things on Earth -weather, sun, moon, what not - but directs them all himself. The Valar did all that kind of work. Eru remained far off and distant, watching the Valar and their progess, but really taking little part in it most of the time. That is different than God ever was, even before Jesus came. God did talk to his people BC, and he didn't leave their fates in the hands of his subordinates.

This post is a bit unclear - had a late night last night, but it's all I can give you just now.

-- Folwren

Lalwendë

11-19-2005, 12:39 PM

If Eru is God, then he is Tolkien's God, and he seems to ahve had a very tortured and idiosyncratic relationship with God. Firstly, Tolkien obviously endured immense mental suffering during WWI seeing his friends (and other men) slaughtered ostensibly for no good reason. Looking at the quotes davem has already posted, this is clear. Secondly, Tolkien undoubtedly had more than spiritual reasons for being a Catholic; it was his mother's religion and was important to him for this reason. It could have been said to have been his own 'precious', as it linked him to a loved parent.

So it appears Tolkien had a God he loved, and a God with motives he struggled to fully understand (of course none of us can ever truly know of any other person's relationship with God so we can only take evidence from what is written). This latter God appeared to demand blood sacrifice, like Odin (I think it was Fea who first mentioned this), and was not forgiving, not gentle. This God only seemed to offer a living Hell. I don't think it's coincidence that Tolkien stopped going to church during the 20s. He clearly had a difficult relationship with God and came to understand Him as a God who demanded not just worship but full on blood sacrifice.

Look at what happens in his work. This is a God who is not worshipped, whose only relationship with his people is to demand their lives every now and then (Numenor, Frodo) for the greater good. What Frodo goes through is very much like what the young conscript goes through. He is sent off to fight, to complete a suicide mission; he does not fully comprehend what will happen to him and only at Mount Doom does he realise what fate has in store for him. Against the odds he survives but only just, as what he ends up with is pure torment and Hell. He gets no reward. For all we know, his going off to the Undying Lands may as well be like taking his own life. We know he is mortal and going there is unlikely to change this; at best he might get a little comfort before he dies, but no reward of returning to his former life, no reward of going to 'Heaven'. What hapens to Frodo is horrible.

Yet what happens is compatible with the God that Tolkien knew, as he was inscrutable, sometimes incredibly cruel, but could somehow not be rejected. The other noticeable thing about this God is that he leaves the people to sort out just about all their problems and there is little intervention. For all the god it does the people, they might as well not have Eru. It demonstrates Tolkien's very difficult relationship with God. Where others who had been through what he went through entirely rejected God, he held onto his belief, seemingly only just, but at the expense of knowing a good God.

Looking at it from personal experience, my father rejected God after trauma, and says he would like to believe in God but cannot. I on the other hand believe in a God (though what I call it I don't know, although I know it is not trinitarian) but I cannot see the point in a veangeful or cruel God as I believe "Hell is other people". Anyone who has been through Hell may come out of it the other side with an idiosyncratic view of God, and this is what happened to Tolkien. Looked at this way, one of the major themes of his work may be the struggle to deal with a veangeful God who you cannot let go of.

davem

11-19-2005, 01:57 PM

Looked at this way, one of the major themes of his work may be the struggle to deal with a veangeful God who you cannot let go of.

I think it is the psychological 'tension' Tolkien felt between the reality he had known - losing his parents, his closest friends & having seen man's inhumanity to man on a scale never before experienced (which must have tempted him to question the existence of a caring God) - & his inability to reject God because of his mother's 'martyrdom' for her faith, which may actually have enabled him to produce his Legendarium, to spend most of his life producing it. That inner conflict had to be dealt with. God stands back & allows waste & suffering on a collossal scale - why doesn't he intervene & stop it???

Yet his own mother gave her life for that very God. To reject God would be to reject his own mother - or at least to declare that she was wrong & her death unnecessary (she quite possibly wouldn't have died if she had not become Catholic & brought her family's rejection & withdrawal of financial support on herself & her children).

I don't think that Tolkien's God was simply a 'vengeful' Deity who demanded human blood, & was glorified by that, but I do think he had that aspect to Him. Of course, Tolkien had to find some reason, or justification, for his mother's God having such a 'dark' side.

littlemanpoet

11-19-2005, 06:05 PM

Regardless of how much can be garnered from Tolkien's Legendarium, Letters, and authorized Biography, attempting to psychologize the nature of his beliefs runs the inevitable risk of saying more about oneself than one says about Tolkien. Very astute points have been made, but I still find the commentary of Lalwendë and davem, for example, more revelatory about their own beliefs than those of Tolkien. Lalwendë, your own comments are very well qualified by a host of "seems" and "appears", as well as the admittance that I refer to above. Nevertheless, we cannot help but be inaccurate in our attempted portrayal of Tolkien's beliefs, at least from a psychological frame of reference. I imagine that a theological frame of reference may serve a little better, but I don't think very many people would be satisifed with that, in so much as it would either require a Roman Catholic (or at least Christian) context, or a non-RCC context that would be by turns just as innaccurate as a psychological.

Fordim Hedgethistle

11-19-2005, 09:53 PM

Out of curiousity, I went to the source -- the Oxford English Dictionary -- to find if "eru" is a 'real' word. It is not, but eruv is. It's Hebrew and means:

Any of various symbolic arrangements which extend the private domain of Jewish households into public areas, thereby permitting activities in them that are normally forbidden in public on the Sabbath; spec. an urban area within which such an arrangement obtains, and which is symbolically enclosed by a wire boundary.

So an eruv (or the variant erub) is a public, social space that has been symbolically 'made' or converted into a private, religious space...soooooooo interesting. Is it too much of a stretch to see Eru as Tolkien's own extension into the public domain of his own "private domain"...? Given that the man was fond of, in his own words, "low philologic jokes" is it possible to see him using the narratives of Middle-Earth as "symbolic arrangements which extend the private domain of [Tolkien's] household into public areas, thereby permitting activities in them that are normally forbidden in public"????

(For what it's worth, the closest words I could find in the Latin family are eructate: "to vomit forth" and erudite: "learned, scholarly"; in Old English there's -ere: the masculine suffix (-es/-as) that "signifies a person or agent" and maybe ǽr-: a prefix meaning "early, former, preceding, ancient")

Child of the 7th Age

11-20-2005, 04:40 AM

Oh, dear, I read these posts and tried to crawl in bed and sleep, but I felt compelled to get up and answer.....

This is a large part of why I do consider Eru to be both YHWH and the Trinitarian God-- the expectations and values placed on men are similar. Men are percieved as being "in control of their own destiny", having free will and making their own choices, their actions having true consequences. However, they cannot (by deciding and acting ) ultimately change the will and plans of Eru, any more than Melkor could. This has a similar feel to both the Christian Trinitarian God, and the Jewish YHWH. But it is quite different from many other religious concepts of God. I think that percieved personality is a large part of this whole consideration.

Helen

My thoughts are much closer to yours than they are to the depiction of Eru that Davem and Lalwende have put forward. I see Tolkien's Eru as distant and removed. But with all due respect, I do not see the demand for and glorification of human blood being one essential aspect of Eru in the Legendarium, which Davem's post states. Most of what is evil we bring on our own heads without help from the outside. I also have a problem with the portrayal of Frodo as an example of God's demanding and unreasonable nature:

Look at what happens in his work. This is a God who is not worshipped, whose only relationship with his people is to demand their lives every now and then (Numenor, Frodo) for the greater good. What Frodo goes through is very much like what the young conscript goes through. He is sent off to fight, to complete a suicide mission; he does not fully comprehend what will happen to him and only at Mount Doom does he realise what fate has in store for him. Against the odds he survives but only just, as what he ends up with is pure torment and Hell. He gets no reward. For all we know, his going off to the Undying Lands may as well be like taking his own life. We know he is mortal and going there is unlikely to change this; at best he might get a little comfort before he dies, but no reward of returning to his former life, no reward of going to 'Heaven'. What hapens to Frodo is horrible.

What happens to Frodo is sad, terribly sad, but it is not "horrible". Frodo was told, even from the beginning, that he could lose his life if he took on the task laid before him. Yet it was made equally evident that not taking on that task could result in the destruction of everything he knew and loved in the Shire. The full realization of what that meant came only slowly, but it was certainly not hidden from him.

Secondly, Frodo was given a choice. No God bludgeoned him over the head or put a knife to his throat. Sometimes, doing what is right is darned hard but you know in your heart what you have to do. Frodo was a decent person/Hobbit and he came to understand that. That he was injured horribly was true, and the general populace in the Shire did not recognize the sacrifice he made. Yet he was not without hope or friends. The support of Sam as well as the author's suggestion that the latter eventually sailed to the West, Arwen's attempt to give Frodo her seat on the vessel, Gandalf's gentle words of inquiry and how he made certain that Bilbo came with Frodo---to me this is not a scene of "horror" but of caring. I do not expect Eru to come flying down from the heavens to offer comfort and hope. Eru built these instincts into us, and it is our responsibility to respond with compassion. Frodo's friends clearly did this.

To assume that Frodo found no hope or relief in the West is to put words in the author's mouth that simply are not there. Nowhere in the Letters does Tolkien say Frodo would not find healing. He merely states that, like much in life, we simply do not know. But we have been told how much Frodo loved Elves and how the light in his eye came to gleem like a reflection of the splintered Silmarils caught in Galadriel's phial. If there is any mortal spirit who would be able to be healed across the Sea in Elvenhome, surely that would be Frodo.

I still think what we are dealing with here is not a difference in Eru but a difference in perspective. Somewhere in the Letters (I am too sleepy to dredge it up right now), Tolkien stated that one of the main reasons he wrote LotR and Silm was to see how men dealt with loss and hardship in an age when they had so little guidance: why and how they followed the path of "right" before they had been given any intimation of God's goodness and nature through revelation, and, in Tolkien's eyes, specifically through the incarnation. The author's eye then was not fixed on God or Eru, per se, but in looking at the response of men to the moral demands of the world. This is similar to Helen's statement above. Eru figures into this equation but only in a distant way, because that is the way the world worked in the pre-covenent period. If Eru is distant, it is because we are talking about the world before Abraham.

There is a second way that perspective comes into play here: that of our own personal perspective in reading the book. Littlemanpoet alluded to this in his post. If I had to use one word and only one word to describe the Legendarium, I would call it "bittersweet". The flashes of tragedy and horror are there, but so too is the steady undercurrent of hope. To view LotR largely from the negative side while failing to see the hope and light just won't work. And when we reduce Frodo's experience to "horror" or emphasize the "dark side" of Eru, we run the risk of erasing the clear line that exists between Sauron and the forces of light. I can't believe Tolkien would have wanted that.

There were clearly moments in life when the author was weighed down with despair. And yet there were other instances when we get a completely different picture. How else can you interpret the conversation between Andreth and Finrod? Tolkien felt so compelled to introduce the possibility of Eru entering into Arda that he even broke his own rule about "Christianity" not being part of the sub-created world. That conversation has always been magical to me: the tortured feelings of both parties, yet interspersed with the possibility of distant renewal. This interchange surely depicts a god of hope rather than anger or even distance.

_________________________

P.S. Can't help but add this, also in response to Lalwende . While no ritual is prescribed for the worship of Eru, Tolkien clearly states that those who follow Eru will combat the evils of the Shadow. I read this as essentially a moral directive: those who honor Eru will conduct themselves in such a way that their behavior will help to overthrow the evil posed by Morgoth and Sauron. To me, this moral imperative is far more significant than any ritual could possibly be.

davem

11-20-2005, 06:19 AM

I can see & accept Child's points - but only if LotR is read in the light of the Legendarium (my usual way, admittedly). But in a recent conversation it was suggested that LotR is Tolkien's 'secular' novel. If we read LotR on its own, we don't get any sense of God being an active participant in the action. Gandalf is not 'an incarnate angel' to us, but a Wizard. Frodo's going into the West may (as Tolkien suggested in one of his letters) be read as an 'allegory' of death.

Remove his 'Christian' Eru from LotR & what do we get? Frodo sacrifices himself for others & dies. A 'reward' of some kind may be his, or it may not. Thus, it is the great 20th century novel to my mind & Tolkien is, in Shippey's phrase the 'Author of the Century' - he laid out our situation as human beings in a world where there is no hard evidence of an all powerful, loving God, where events like Gollum's fall may be seen as divine intervention or simple accident.

If Eru 'demands' Frodo's sacrifice He may be a Deity with both Light & Dark aspects, but nonetheless, He is a Deity the actually exists. What is the alternative? No Eru at all (which may be the case if we only read LotR) or an Eru who, in Gilson's words 'Canst only be glorified by man's own suffering & the supreme pain.' If Eru offers 'hope' to his Children it is hope which may only be found 'beyond the circles of the World', not within it. Hope, if it exists, exists with Eru, outside the World, yet LotR takes place within the World.

In short, if we include Eru in our understanding of LotR, make Him a player, we have to accept that he is 'inscrutable' (Gilson again), that he will allow suffering, if not actually require it, & that any 'reward' He gives to those who suffer for His (& other's) sake, is not recieved in this life. Neither does he deign to reveal even enough of himself to offer the smallest degree of reassurance to those who suffer for him that they suffer for a purpose. Eru kills the corrupted Numenoreans, but allows Sauron, their corrupter, to continue his existence in the world. The direct result of this is that Frodo will have to sacrifice himself to bring about his end.

If Eru 'chose' Frodo as Ringbearer, He also chose his ultimate fate. Eru's decision, way back before time, to allow Morgoth the freedom to alter the Music & then to enter into Arda, required Frodo's suffering. Frodo is destroyed because of Eru's choice - in other words, Frodo has to put right what Eru permitted.

Lalwendë

11-20-2005, 08:11 AM

Presumptions and assumptions, that's all any of us really have to go on for what Tolkien truly felt about God. Applying theology isn't any different to applying psychology to his beliefs, how they were formed and how they developed; all we have to go on for evidence is the wealth of words written by and about Tolkien and none of us could hope to come close to understanding what he truly believed as the 'truth' of any person's relationship with God is utterly intangible.

Accepting that Tolkien's God is much more difficult and inscrutable than the kindly notions of God that many of us have come to know is not wrong. People of his generation were more likely to take the view that God could (and would) be cruel; my own Catholic grandmother used to tell me that God would smite me down and His way was His will. And you only have to look at a book of good, stirring Methodist hymns to see this view of God. Sacrifice and martyrdom has been, and is, a way of glorifying God.

Child expresses her belief in 'hope' through her post, and I too believe in 'hope', and through this I cling to the possibility that Frodo could have been healed too. But what the text lacks is any evidence that there truly is hope for Frodo. The great and the good contrive to obtain him a place in the ship to the West and judging by the evidence we have that Elves have powers of healing (e.g. Elrond healing Frodo's wounds at Rivendell) we might guess that he will at least receive some succour in the West. That gives us hope. But the cold hard fact is that the only thing that would truly heal Frodo is to turn back the clock and have none of this ever happen. When Frodo says "there is no real going back", then this is the truth; he will never return to his former state.

Frodo was indeed told that his task was dangerous, and he was given a choice, but do we know whether he fully comprehended that choice? I would say not, as it was not until Mount Doom that the awful truth dawned. Looking at this from real life, the servicemen who took part in experiments at Porton Down, and those who were involved in the atom bomb tests would have been told that their participation held risks, and though there may or may not have been choice involved, they would also have seen participation as their duty ("for the sake of my children and their children"). They would also end up hurt and would not be the same again, and though we can give them our compassion, it still does not undo the act or shut the Pandora's Box which was opened.

LotR, taken alone, has a very stark but modern ending. There is only a hope of succour, there are no promises and there is definitely no going back. I don't think it's only because the story is over that many people weep at the end of the book. Take LotR alone, without Eru, and the novel tells us that only the great efforts of human life can overcome evil, our hope lies with each other. Divinty is present, in the form of Light, but we do not know of Eru. Good and evil, Light and Dark are there but they are delineated through the actions of those who are 'good' or 'evil', not through reference to Eru.

But then take LotR in conjunction with the Silmarillion, and it becomes clear that there is a God in this world we are reading about, and it then becomes clear that this God is somewhat inscrutable, allowing suffering and we begin to ask why? Tolkien's answer as to why is that Eru just is, and it is his will. The Long Defeat is endless until Eru decides to bring about the End of Arda, as these people will continue to struggle and suffer against the evil which Eru allowed to enter into their world.

littlemanpoet

11-20-2005, 03:45 PM

Frodo is destroyed because of Eru's choice - in other words, Frodo has to put right what Eru permitted.And if Eru had not permitted it, none of the inhabitants of Arda would have been free agents. So we are left condemning Eru either for permitting free will, or allowing evil. We can't have it both ways. This has turned into a revisitation of another thread's discussion about a year or so ago. Remember it?

davem

11-20-2005, 04:02 PM

And if Eru had not permitted it, none of the inhabitants of Arda would have been free agents. So we are left condemning Eru either for permitting free will, or allowing evil. We can't have it both ways. This has turned into a revisitation of another thread's discussion about a year or so ago. Remember it?

Fine - but why should Frodo have to suffer & lose his life because of Eru's choice to permit freewill - wouldn't the more 'moral' action on Eru's part have been to suffer himself, rather than choose Frodo to go through it?

Feanor of the Peredhil

11-20-2005, 04:51 PM

Fine - but why should Frodo have to suffer & lose his life because of Eru's choice to permit freewill - wouldn't the more 'moral' action on Eru's part have been to suffer himself, rather than choose Frodo to go through it?
Perhaps there's simply more to it than we are supposed to understand. If Eru is God, and God is inconceivable, than how presumptuous are we to assume that we know all that's going on?

Kuruharan

11-20-2005, 05:03 PM

Frodo...lose his life

Beg pardon? Frodo lost his life?

davem

11-20-2005, 05:35 PM

Beg pardon? Frodo lost his life?

He lost his life - I specifically avoided saying he died...

mark12_30

11-20-2005, 07:01 PM

Fine - but why should Frodo have to suffer & lose his life because of Eru's choice to permit freewill - wouldn't the more 'moral' action on Eru's part have been to suffer himself, rather than choose Frodo to go through it?

If suffering is the only consideration, then maybe. But if development of the soul, and growth of the spirit is the goal, then suffering is part of the process. We dodge suffering, as humans, and we hate it, but it creates something that rose petals and an easy life cannot.

The Saucepan Man

11-20-2005, 07:13 PM

We dodge suffering, as humans, and we hate it, but it creates something that rose petals and an easy life cannot.But why should some have to suffer, or suffer more, than others? Because they are more in need of spiritual development? Why was Frodo chosen for the Quest and not Merry or Pippin, or Rosie Cotton? Why should children have to suffer before they have had a chance to grow physically and mentally, let alone spritually?

I don't buy it. And that's why Eru, for me, is not God.

Kuruharan

11-20-2005, 07:18 PM

...and know what I will say, but for clarity I'll ask...

He lost his life - I specifically avoided saying he died
davem

What specifically do you mean by that?

Perhaps we should move this over to the CbC discussion since it will probably heavily relate to it.

We dodge suffering, as humans, and we hate it, but it creates something that rose petals and an easy life cannot.
mark12_30

Yes. Cynicism and bitterness.

Oh, wait, you meant strength of character...oops. ;)

mark12_30

11-20-2005, 07:24 PM

But why should some have to suffer, or suffer more, than others? Because they are more in need of spiritual development? Why was Frodo chosen for the Quest and not Merry or Pippin, or Rosie Cotton? Why should children have to suffer before they have had a chance to grow physically and mentally, let alone spritually? I don't buy it. And that's why Eru, for me, is not God.

That would take us quite far off topic, I think, so I'll keep it ultra-brief. Too brief.

One: Suffering can be a free-will offering, as Sharon has described. That's one reason for it.

Two: The other 'reason' for suffering is somebody else's sin-- for instance, Hitler's sin caused a lot of suffering. Likewise, Sauron's sin caused a lot of suffering. Hence the commands not to sin.

At which point the question arises, why did God allow Hitler to do what he did, and why did Eru allow Sauron to do what he did?? Bottom line: free will is truly free. Man is free to be a monster if he so chooses, and monsters cause suffering. If we go against Eru the music is nasty. He works it all towards a good end, but it's nasty nonetheless.

I think no matter how many times we go around on this, Sharon's and my opinions will differ significantly from yours, Saucie.....

Cheers.

Formendacil

11-20-2005, 07:30 PM

The Saucepan Man

11-20-2005, 07:46 PM

The other 'reason' for suffering is somebody else's sin-- for instance, Hitler's sin caused a lot of suffering. Likewise, Sauron's sin caused a lot of suffering. Hence the commands not to sin.... and "Acts of God"?

But you are right. This takes us off topic (albeit by an interesting route). My point was merely to illustrate the point that Formendacil has picked up on.

If that makes you believe that Eru is not God, then clearly God as defined by most Christians (and Jews) is not someone that you believe in.Bingo!

So, whether or not you do in fact believe in a real God, this ought to be another proof that Eru is God.No. That does not follow. I accept that Eru is Tolkien's God. I also accept from what you say that he is your God. But, to me, Eru is not God.

littlemanpoet

11-20-2005, 08:42 PM

Would you change your vote, having read the discussion to this point?

Yes _______

No_______

If yes, What changed your mind?

Roa_Aoife

11-20-2005, 09:20 PM

I would still be voting yes, LMP.

But I'd like to point out that we seem to be discussing our individual veiws of God, rather than Tolkien's veiw of Eru. Or does that just go back to the "C" thread....

alatar

11-20-2005, 09:44 PM

One: Suffering can be a free-will offering, as Sharon has described. That's one reason for it.

Two: The other 'reason' for suffering is somebody else's sin-- for instance, Hitler's sin caused a lot of suffering. Likewise, Sauron's sin caused a lot of suffering. Hence the commands not to sin.

Thought that this (http://www.csicop.org/si/2005-09/eth.html) was interesting.

And it's obviously personal bias, but I find Eru a bit less harsh than the Christian God (not offense meant). That may be due to the actually BC interventions, or the language that is used in the Old Testament regarding the plans and thoughts of Jehovah. Eru doesn't intervene directly, and most of the work is done by the Ainur, and so I guess that he's a bit more palatable.

Lalwendë

11-21-2005, 03:50 AM

I accept that Eru is Tolkien's God. I also accept from what you say that he is your God. But, to me, Eru is not God.

This about sums it up for me. And I won't be changing my vote because the poll asked if Eru was THE God, not Tolkien's God.

I envy those who can accept one view of God and stick with it, as I cannot. I see too many Gods and their most devout followers are not all bad people, so either they are all wrong or all right. I do tend to veer towards they are all right (hence my interest in Unitarianism) and I would defend to the last anyone's right to religious freedom.

If that makes you believe that Eru is not God, then clearly God as defined by most Christians (and Jews) is not someone that you believe in.

I'd question 'most Christians'. I was brought up Anglican and Tolkien's God was not the God I learned about (though I knew of this God through my grandmother's fire and brimstone beliefs). My God was inherently good. Natural disasters were just that, and as Christians our role was to help out as much as possible (usually through the jumble sale ;) ); likewise evil was nothing to do with 'original sin' it was the fault of misguided people. The role of God was to guide us, not to punish us; more a case of do good things to make God happy rather than avoid bad things because you'll get punished.

A final thought, somewhat random...Free will. Where do the Elves fit into all of this? They are denied the most basic free will of all, to die.

Formendacil

11-21-2005, 12:22 PM

I'd question 'most Christians'. I was brought up Anglican and Tolkien's God was not the God I learned about (though I knew of this God through my grandmother's fire and brimstone beliefs). My God was inherently good. Natural disasters were just that, and as Christians our role was to help out as much as possible (usually through the jumble sale ;) ); likewise evil was nothing to do with 'original sin' it was the fault of misguided people. The role of God was to guide us, not to punish us; more a case of do good things to make God happy rather than avoid bad things because you'll get punished.

Perhaps I should restate it in a different manner...

If that makes you believe that Eru is not God, then clearly certain aspects of God as defined by most Christian (and Jewish) dogma is not something that you believe in.

Gurthang

11-21-2005, 05:35 PM

I do tend to veer towards they are all right (hence my interest in Unitarianism) and I would defend to the last anyone's right to religious freedom.

I'm wondering if you've ever read Left Behind, Lal?

Formendacil, what I find interesting is that I think you and I have about the same view of God (Christian) but voted differently. I'll say again that I think of Eru like I think of God, but that is not the question. And the fact that there is any difference at all makes them not the same. Yet I can definitely see why you picked what you did.

So, answering littlemanpoet's question: I would still vote the same. My views may have changed some, but not my answer.

And now I've got a question of my own. If you believe that Eru and God are the same, do you believe that Tolkien meant to leave out the coming of Men to Middle-Earth so that we could 'insert' Eden into the story? Meaning we would put the Creation of Man in the Garden of Eden into the part of the Silmarillion where Men first appear in the East.

davem

11-27-2005, 04:04 AM

Bêthberry

11-27-2005, 09:00 AM

On the 'inscrutability' of Tolkien's God:

That Sauron was not himself destroyed in the anger of the One is not my fault: the problem of evil, & its apparent toleration, is a permanent one for all who concern themselves with our world. (Letter to Rhona Beare, 14th October 1958)

So, Tolkien's God apparently 'tolerates' evil (its also interesting that in discussing the Fall of Numenor Tolkien refers to 'our' world). In another letter, to Father Robert Murray (4th November 1954) he refers to Sauron's deception of Ar-Pharazon as a 'Satanic' lie (ie, he seems to conflate Sauron & Satan).

What I find interesting is Tolkien's statement that God's toleration of evil is a 'permanent' problem. Clearly, whatever his Church's teaching on the nature of evil & free will, Tolkien couldn't understand it, & certainly had no easy answers to offer. Sauron couldn't be destroyed by Eru in his Secondary World, for the same reason that God hasn't destroyed Satan in this world - Tolkien simply didn't know what that reason was.

This 'permanent problem' suggests uncertainty, even doubt, in Tolkien's mind regarding God's purposes. In Middle-earth he explores these doubts & uncertainties but never, it seems to me, comes to a conclusion.

The letter to Rhona Beare has several interesting features, one of which is this statement which opens the paragraph davem quotes. I'm sure davem knows it, of course, but others might not.

Sauron was first defeated by a 'miracle': a direct action of God the Creator, changing the fashion of the world, when appealed to by Manwë: see III, 317. Though reduced to a 'spirit of hatred borne on a dark wind', I do not think one need boggle at this spirit carrying off the One Ring, upon which his power of dominating minds now largely depended. That Sauron was not himself destroyed in the anger of the One is not my fault...

I'm not by any means an authority on The Silm (nor particularly a fan of it), but this passage does seem to show that Tolkien himself conflated Eru with the Christian God. What is also mildly interesting to me is Tolkien's use of 'One' here.

littlemanpoet

11-27-2005, 08:21 PM

And now I've got a question of my own. If you believe that Eru and God are the same, do you believe that Tolkien meant to leave out the coming of Men to Middle-Earth so that we could 'insert' Eden into the story? Meaning we would put the Creation of Man in the Garden of Eden into the part of the Silmarillion where Men first appear in the East.Actually, no. I think Tolkien left it out because he didn't want to directly include any of the Hebrew myth in his myth. It's interesting, no, telling, to me, that Tolkien did not include a Creation of Man story in his myth. I wonder if he felt he could not improve, or was it that he feared to write something other than what he believed to be true? *LMP shrugs at his new can of worms...*

littlemanpoet

11-27-2005, 08:29 PM

Sorry to double post but I wish to respond to this:
What I find interesting is Tolkien's statement that God's toleration of evil is a 'permanent' problem. Clearly, whatever his Church's teaching on the nature of evil & free will, Tolkien couldn't understand it, & certainly had no easy answers to offer. Sauron couldn't be destroyed by Eru in his Secondary World, for the same reason that God hasn't destroyed Satan in this world - Tolkien simply didn't know what that reason was. ... This 'permanent problem' suggests uncertainty, even doubt, in Tolkien's mind regarding God's purposes. In Middle-earth he explores these doubts & uncertainties but never, it seems to me, comes to a conclusion.
Indeed. To believe that God is both just and merciful at once, is a problem for all humanity. But knowledge that God is both, is necessary to belief in one God, and does shed light on much that Tolkien wrote. I'd say that Tolkien did come to conclusions in LotR, just not propositional ones. Otherwise the story would not be so deeply satisfying on so many levels, not least of which is the spiritual.

mark12_30

11-28-2005, 05:49 AM

That Sauron was not himself destroyed in the anger of the One is not my fault: the problem of evil, & its apparent toleration, is a permanent one for all who concern themselves with our world. (Letter to Rhona Beare, 14th October 1958)

In response to davem: I think Tolkien 'solved' this issue quite thoroughly in Iluvatar's response to Melkor's dissonant music. To inelegantly paraphrase: Do your worst, my theme will finally, entirely triumph by including your music in a way that you cannot imagine. He goes so far as to include men in the second music of the Ainur. Not only will Melkor's, and Sauron's, dissonance be resolved in the end, but mankind will witness it.

That LotR's intrinsic conclusions are not "final" is due to its timeframe, not to any confusion Tolkien had as to why God tolerates evil. His statement in the letter does not indicate to me that Tolkien had personal problems with how God deals with evil; his use of the word "apparent" underlines this. He is simply stating that every serious enquirer will ask the question.

I'm not by any means an authority on The Silm (nor particularly a fan of it), but this passage does seem to show that Tolkien himself conflated Eru with the Christian God. What is also mildly interesting to me is Tolkien's use of 'One' here.

"The One" is the english translation of the elvish "Eru".

davem

11-28-2005, 07:23 AM

Recently I've begun to wonder whether what we get from LotR is not 'satisfaction' a having our spiritual questions answered or our confusions & dilemmas resolved, but rather a 'confirmation' of our own doubts & uncertainties. That may seem an odd thing to say, but I can't help remembering that line from the movie Shadowlands (about CS Lewis & Joy Davidman). One of Lewis' students says at one point that 'We read to know we're not alone.' Maybe that's what we get from LotR – not 'This is the answer to your question' but ' I don't know either. We all stand in the face of a great mystery. This is how things are in the world.'

Feanor of the Peredhil

11-28-2005, 07:38 AM

Maybe that's what we get from LotR – not 'This is the answer to your question' but ' I don't know either. We all stand in the face of a great mystery. This is how things are in the world.'
Or... you know... we just like the story. :p

Bêthberry

11-28-2005, 09:47 AM

Sauron was first defeated by a 'miracle': a direct action of God the Creator, changing the fashion of the world, when appealed to by Manwë: see III, 317. Though reduced to a 'spirit of hatred borne on a dark wind', I do not think one need boggle at this spirit carrying off the One Ring, upon which his power of dominating minds now largely depended. That Sauron was not himself destroyed in the anger of the One is not my fault...

I'm not by any means an authority on The Silm (nor particularly a fan of it), but this passage does seem to show that Tolkien himself conflated Eru with the Christian God. What is also mildly interesting to me is Tolkien's use of 'One' here.

"The One" is the english translation of the elvish "Eru".

Oh, I know that, Helen. I am just intrigued by the juxtaposition of "One Ring" and "the One". :)

Morsul the Dark

11-28-2005, 09:51 AM

I confess to voting without reading the first post i clicked yes and when i read the first post i change my vote to no

EDIT: to make this post more objective here are some thoughts...Eru can be god if you want him to be...I could be god and technicly there is no way to disprove that(Im kidding I know god knows that thats why i wont be struck by lightning) what im saying is god is anyone you want him or her (as the case more likely is) to be

Eonwe

11-28-2005, 11:10 AM

yes, but that is only kind of true. you can think of god as anything you want. and you can believe god is anything you want. but that doesn't change who God really is.

in other words, you can believe an idol to be God, but that doesn't make it God. God is God no matter what you or i believe.

i think the bottom line is that Eru displays none of the charactersistics of the Christian/Jewish (aka Jehovah) God. which would be personal relationships, mercy, grace, etc.

here is something else to think about. you can't really make any kind of comparison about Eru and God without looking at morality. in the christian view, if you sin, you're screwed, except for grace and jesus' blood. in teh middle-earth consept, that is not always true. the sons of feanor didn't really get punished all that much. (correctly me if im wrong, i believe they just got extra long time in the halls of mandos, which isn't much to an immortal elf.) It never says much about the fate of men, not to mention the fate of good men, and evil men. or even what make you a good man or an evil man. (well the evil is obvious i guess. but many of teh "good" men did bad things.

it seems as if Eru/the powers that be that represent Eru's intetions and wishes are quite a bit more linitent that God. and sin is a huge, major deal to God.

Feanor of the Peredhil

11-28-2005, 11:57 AM

God is God no matter what you or i believe.
Either that or God isn't God, no matter what you or I believe.

alatar

11-28-2005, 12:15 PM

in the christian view, if you sin, you're screwed, except for grace and jesus' blood.

Unless we assume that all of Tolkien's revelations were BC, then a blood sacrifice would do.

Recently I've begun to wonder whether what we get from LotR is not 'satisfaction' a having our spiritual questions answered or our confusions & dilemmas resolved, but rather a 'confirmation' of our own doubts & uncertainties.

Or do we see a reflection of what we want it all to be? Do Christians see the Christian God? Do others see a First Cause? And still others might see a great 'explanatory' mythology. And of course the more boring just see words on a page...

Is that the making of the next poll where one indicates his/her belief system and also how he/she perceives Eru? I'd wager that you'd see a strong correlation between 'beliefs' and the text.

Roa_Aoife

11-28-2005, 12:28 PM

If we assume the LoTR is a history, it would probably be in the BC era, which, according to the Old Testament, faith and repentance were the saving grace, and nothing else. The "good guys" in LoTR seemed, for the most part, to have this faith in Eru, and to truly repent when they screwed up. And just because a character didn't fight for Suaron, it doesn't make him necessarily a "good guy" (I point to Denethor.)

Eru does fit the Deist view of God, which says that God created the world and then left it to it's own devices. Many Christians were and still are Deists, both Catholic and Non-Catholic. So it is very possible that Tolkien had a similar view. (I think from the quotes provided it is clear what Tolkien thought.)

However, Eru does act, albeit indirectly and subtlely, throught the story; and it is obvious that unseen forces are moving on both sides. Eru shows mercy in the Silm. several times, and demonstrates love of His children, both the first and second born, by giving them different gifts.

davem

11-28-2005, 12:43 PM

Or do we see a reflection of what we want it all to be? Do Christians see the Christian God? Do others see a First Cause? And still others might see a great 'explanatory' mythology. And of course the more boring just see words on a page...
.

I suppose we all read it in the light of our experiences - though I think we should try not to. The more of the primary world we bring in to our reading the less Middle-earth will seem a real, self-contained secondary world.

What interests me is the way reading LotR in the light of the Sil affects our understanding of the story, & in particular our understanding of Frodo's fate. Helen's post makes this point. The 'permanent problem' of evil in LotR is dealt with & answered if we read it in the light of the Sil. If we don't the problem remains unanswered. Yet many readers find The Sil difficult & have little or no time for it. It doesn't move them in the way LotR does. I wonder if this is because it offers answers to those very 'permanent problems' & that on some level those answers seem either over complex & metaphysical, or overly simplistic. Maybe those readers just feel 'No, that's not it' - even if they can't supply the 'right' answers for themselves.

LotR simply presents us with the kind of world we know, where sacrifice & suffering, selfishness & loss, cruelty, beauty, love & grief are facts of existence, existing for themselves. The Sil attempts to explain the 'why' of those things. The Sil introduces the necessity for 'faith', trust & belief in things 'beyond the circles of the World' - it requires those things from readers if they are to enter into the story. LotR does not. For all Tolkien's protests it is, ultimately, a 'secular' novel - yes, there are 'believers' in it (notably the Elves, hymning Elbereth) but there is no necessity for the reader to believe what they do.

Certainly, the massive popularity of LotR over the Sil says a great deal about our age. I daresay if the novels had been published 500 years ago the Sil would have been the more popular work.

alatar

11-28-2005, 12:53 PM

Certainly, the massive popularity of LotR over the Sil says a great deal about our age. I daresay if the novels had been published 500 years ago the Sil would have been the more popular work.

Not sure on that. To me the difficulty of the Sil is that it reads more like a text book than a novel, and so it's not the information contained therein that is problematic but the presentation of the same. In LotR you walk along with Frodo (for the most part) and see the world through his journey. In the Sil you tend to jump around more, and I would assume that more people favor the stories in the Sil that are more complete and self-contained.

And surely others have noticed the repetitiveness of the Sil stories - the long defeat - and so might be put off by that. Also like some parts of the Christian Bible, not many lay readers are interested in lists of 'begats.' Does anyone else skip over the detailed description of Numenor after reading it the first time?

So I would guess that it's a writing style, not the answers to life's questions, that put people off.

And to be sure, does anyone know where we can find at least two literate 500 year old persons? ;)

Aiwendil

11-28-2005, 12:54 PM

Davem wrote:
I wonder if this is because it offers answers to those very 'permanent problems' & that on some level those answers seem either over complex & metaphysical, or overly simplistic. Maybe those readers just feel 'No, that's not it' - even if they can't supply the 'right' answers for themselves.

I don't know. Speaking for myself, I'm a great fan of the Silmarillion but I am not religious. If religious 'answers' are what put people off about the Silmarillion, then one would think that I'd be among the first to be put off by them.

Or maybe it works the other way - maybe because I don't approach the Silmarillion with the objective of learning about some extra-literary 'Truth', I am not disappointed when I fail to find it.

Edit: Cross-post with alatar, who makes a good point and one with which I agree. It seems to me that it is the style of the Silmarillion (and particularly the published Silmarillion) to which some people react negatively.

littlemanpoet

11-28-2005, 09:25 PM

The 'permanent problem' of evil in LotR is dealt with & answered if we read it in the light of the Sil. If we don't the problem remains unanswered.

I don't think this is true. Bear with me as it will take a few quotes and explications to develop my point. For starters, a few quotations from Fellowship of the Ring illustrate this:

Fear seemed to stretch out a vast hand, like a dark cloud rising in the East and looming up to engulf him.~FotR p60

Note the foreshadowing of the presence of the Dark Lord virtually reaching across Middle Earth to the Shire, in the shape of Fear. Note that this is not mere foreshadowing; the fear is real, and "seems" to stretch out from the East. Is this mere description for the sake of effect? No, it is reality that Tolkien is describing, in terms of his cosmos, and Frodo is for the first time perceiving that reality that lies behind that which he has always "known" to be real.

(Gandalf speaking)'There was more than one power at work, Frodo. The Ring was trying to get back to its master .... it abandoned Gollum. Only to be picked up by the most unlikely person imaginable: 'Bilbo from the Shire!'
'Behind that there was something else at work, beyond any design of the Ring-maker. I can put it no plainer than by saying that Bilbo was meant to find the Ring, and not by its maker. In which case you also were meant to have it. And that may be an encouraging thought.'
'It is not,' said Frodo.'~FotR p65

Setting aside Frodo's disagreement regarding encouragement a moment, who is doing the meaning? Who does Gandalf mean by it? Gandalf is an emissary from the West. He is a Maiar, who has learned great wisdom in Lorien of the West. Before that, he was amongst those who witnessed the Ainulindalë of Ilúvatar. He was in the presence of Ilúvatar before the making of Arda. So this meaning is being done either by Manwe and Varda, or by Eru. Since Manwe and Varda are viceroys of Eru, the meaning is ultimately Eru's. The Walls of Arda cannot prevent their Maker from sending messages into Arda to be heard by the Valar. Nor can they prevent the direct action of their Maker. Nor can those Walls prevent their maker from being present in Arda, even if Eru has not taken bodily shape as have the Valar. Gandalf's words here and elsewhere signify a consistent and purposeful working of Eru within Arda, even though Eru does not physically enter Arda as did the Valar of the Silmarillion.

'Of course, my dear Frodo, it was dangerous for you; and that has troubled me deeply. But there was so much at stake that I had to take some risk---though even when I was far away there has never been a day when the Shire has not been guarded by watchful eyes. FotR ;69

Gandalf, as emissary of the Valar and Eru, reveals the heart of Eru in this kindly word to Frodo. If Eru can create a being who is as kindly and caring as Gandalf, Eru Himself must necessarily be at least as kindly and caring, and very likely much more.

A great dread fell on [Frodo], as if he was awaiting the pronouncement of some doom that he had long foreseen and vainly hoped might after all never be spoken. An overwhelming longing to rest and remain at peace by Bilbo's side in Rivendell filled all his heart. At last with an effort he spoke, and wondered to hear his own word, as if some other will was using his small voice.
'I will take the Ring,' [Frodo] said, 'though I do not know the way.'
Elrond raised his eyes and looked at him, and Frodo felt his heart pierced by a sudden keenness of the glance. 'If I understand aright all that I have heard,' he said, 'I think that this task is appointed for you, Frodo; and that if you do not find a way, no one will.'~FotR p284

As if some other will? Any honest reader of Tolkien knows in his or her bones that the "as if" is virtually a signal that, indeed, what is about to be described, is the reality. Some other will? What will? Appointed? By whom? Again, either Manwe and Varda, or Eru.

Note also the dread of a pronouncement, and of all people, it is Frodo himself who speaks the dreaded pronouncement! ... as if another will was using his small voice. Here in poignant story, is a microcosm of the immense debate between free will and suffering, and the answer, if I may make so bold as to use that term, is "both/and". Because story, reflecting reality, is wrought from whole cloth. It's only in proposition that we can dissect such things. In other words, Frodo has made a choice, and Frodo is that choice made by Eru.

'You cannot pass,' [Gandalf] said. The orcs stood still, and a dead silence fell. 'I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor. You cannot pass. The dark fire will not avail you, flame of Udûn. Go back to the Shadow! You cannot pass.'~FotR p344
What is the Secret Fire, this flame of Anor? It is not merely the Elvin Ring he wears. It's something that is greater than the fire or might of the Balrog, of any demon, and must be greater than the source of the Balrog's power, Morgoth. There is only one Being greater than Morgoth: Ilúvatar. Gandalf is Eru's hand in Middle Earth, the most direct embodiment of the will of Eru.

[Melkor] had gone often alone into the void places seeking the Imperishable Flame; for desire grew hot within him to being into Being things of his own, and it seemed to him that Ilúvatar took no thought for the Void, and he was impatient of its emptiness. Yet he found not the Fire, for it is with Ilúvatar.~Sil p16
The Imperishable Flame is the Secret Fire of Anor. It is with Eru/Ilúvatar. Gandalf is its wielder, in Arda. Eru is very much interested in the details of Middle Earth, very much concerned with the 'fortunes' of the Free Peoples, which are of his making. The Children of Eru, who are the Eldar, Edain, Dwarves, and Hobbits, are the special province of Eru. It is a shortsighted reading that thinks Eru is not at the back of, the power behind all that is good in, LotR, does not care for, and has no mercy or pity on all that goes on in Middle Earth.

In The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien has woven Eru into the deep fabric of Middle Earth.

davem

11-29-2005, 06:05 AM

LmP

I think its possible to interpret all those references to 'meaning' in another way. I was listening again last night to Ronald Hutton's talk at Birmingham 'Tolkien the Pagan'. He made the point that the version of the Silmarillion that provided the background to LotR was the one produced in the 20's (a decade which he refers to in a letter to his son Michael, describing how, due to his 'wickedness & sloth' he failed to go to mass, & where he had virtually put aside his faith), which was far more 'pagan' in form & style. The Valar were little different to the Classical Gods, with their tendency to infighting & squabbling, their marriages & production of children, etc.

Hutton made the point that Tolkien was deeply upset at accusations by early reviewers that LotR was 'athiestic' or agnostic & grabbed eagerly onto any suggestions from readers that suggested a Christian interpretation of Galadriel as the Virgin Mary, Lembas as the Host, etc. Tolkien wanted very much at that time to be accepted as a Catholic author & played up those interpretations. Remember that it was in the post-LotR period that he embarked on a major re-write of the Sil, mainly with the intention of bringing into line with his Catholic faith.

No, to the references to 'meaning'. The references are very vague. I think a far more 'pagan' alternative to Eru is available – Wyrd: the Northern equivalent of 'fate'/'destiny'. This is an impersonal 'force' (although given symbolic form in the Norns). All mentions of 'meaning' in the text can be interpreted in the light of Wyrd. The characters have destinies to fulfil, but this doesn't have to be interpreted in a Christian sense.

As I said, if read in the light of the (later) Sil (ie the one produced & published by Christopher in 1977) LotR can be interpreted as you suggest, & appears to conform with Christianity, with Eru playing the role of the Christian God in the way you suggest. If read in the light of the pre-LotR ('pagan') Sil our interpretation may be very different. In that work Eru exists but plays little part in events, leaving that sort of thing to the Gods, who, as I said, are hardly perfect representations of Angelic beings.

Aiwendil

11-29-2005, 07:36 AM

Davem: I think the basic point you make above is correct (i.e. that without the Silmarillion, LotR can be read in a more 'pagan' light and that the Silmarillion became more Catholic post-LotR) - but I think you exaggerate the degree to which pre- and post-LotR Silmarillions differ.

The Valar were little different to the Classical Gods, with their tendency to infighting & squabbling, their marriages & production of children, etc.

This is true of the Lost Tales, but we ought to note that by '37 Quenta Silmarillion (i.e. immediately pre-LotR) these elements were gone (save marriage, which of course persisted into the final versions). Most importantly, the Valar had already become more thoroughly good or 'Angelic'.

In that work Eru exists but plays little part in events, leaving that sort of thing to the Gods, who, as I said, are hardly perfect representations of Angelic beings.

Where do you see an increase in the role assigned to Eru in the later Silmarillion? I agree that the work at this point was more religious, and of course there is the 'Athrabeth'. But Eru's role in the Silmarillion proper seems to me to be almost identical to his earlier role.

davem

11-29-2005, 09:04 AM

My statements were based on Hutton's talk at Birmingham, but I think he got it right.

This is true of the Lost Tales, but we ought to note that by '37 Quenta Silmarillion (i.e. immediately pre-LotR) these elements were gone (save marriage, which of course persisted into the final versions). Most importantly, the Valar had already become more thoroughly good or 'Angelic'.

The Quenta is very much a 'transitional' phase - if seen in the context of Tolkien's life. Some aspects of the story had been changed, some elements of the Lost Tales remained. I will look into the details further (don't have my books with me), but, as Hutton points out overall the Legendarium is generally a 'neo-Platonic work, rather than an orthodox Catholic one. I'm not sure Tolkien saw the Quenta as necessarily superceeding the LT, or that he had rejected everything it contained.

Where do you see an increase in the role assigned to Eru in the later Silmarillion? I agree that the work at this point was more religious, and of course there is the 'Athrabeth'. But Eru's role in the Silmarillion proper seems to me to be almost identical to his earlier role.

Ok, but I certainly think its clear that Eru's role increased in Tolkien's mind - one only has to read the Letters. His focus increasingly is on Eru's role, the part he plays 'in the wings'. Tolkien wants to explain why what happened was Eru's will. I certainly think the presence of Eru runs through the post LotR Sil in a way that it doesn't in the Quenta.

I think it is clear that pre- LotR Tolkien was less concerned with the Legendarium being 'Orthodox' - because he'd never been challenged on that matter. Only in teh post-LotR period did that concern grow almost to the point of obsession. Changes made to the Legendarium to produce the Quenta were for artistic rather than theological reasons.

Aiwendil

11-29-2005, 12:04 PM

The Quenta is very much a 'transitional' phase - if seen in the context of Tolkien's life.

Well, the Legendarium was always evolving, so every phase save the very first and very last was in some sense ‘transitional'. Still, I agree that '30s period in particular can be seen as a transition between one long phase and another.

I'm not sure Tolkien saw the Quenta as necessarily superceding the LT, or that he had rejected everything it contained.

It's certainly true (and a point that CRT makes several times) that details found in an earlier narrative and omitted from a later one were often not rejected but merely suppressed due to compression. Still, there are many cases where a later text clearly and explicitly contradicts (and thus supercedes) an earlier one. Many of the more Pagan elements of the Lost Tales are clearly rejected in the late '20s and '30s - for instance, Makar and Measse, the warrior gods.

Again, I don't fundamentally disagree with you; I'm just quibbling. My points, really are:

1. The Legendarium contained, at every stage, a mixture of Paganism and Catholicism; the pre- LotR Silmarillion was not wholly Pagan and the post-LotR Silmarillion was not wholly Catholic.

2. It is overly simplistic to divide the Legendarium into pre- and post-LotR phases; there was considerable evolution both from 1914-1937 and from 1951-1973.

Changes made to the Legendarium to produce the Quenta were for artistic rather than theological reasons.

Now that's an interesting statement. Surely Tolkien did not see his post-LotR work on the Legendarium as non-artistic (or even non-artistic in motivation).

Formendacil

11-29-2005, 01:41 PM

My statements were based on Hutton's talk at Birmingham, but I think he got it right.

I wonder...

Do you think that he got it right because you wanted him to get it right? Did you find his arguments compelling because they were well-woven and because they jived with your own personal opinions?

Throughout most of this thread, it seems to me, you have argued on the side of Eru is not God. I'm minded of this quote by Alatar, several posts back:

Is that the making of the next poll where one indicates his/her belief system and also how he/she perceives Eru? I'd wager that you'd see a strong correlation between 'beliefs' and the text.

I'm rather willing to agree with Alatar. Certainly, his theory seems born out in my opinion. I am a conservative, orthodox, Catholic, and I have definitely been on the list of "Eru = God" defenders.

Which brings us full circle to Tolkien... he was Catholic, if strongly interested professionally in paganism. To say that Eru is intended to be God is not a ridiculous assumption at all, as far as that goes. And, as demonstrated, Eru might not be exactly YOUR personal vision of God, whoever you are and whatever that might be, but the way Eru is presented definitely falls within the boundaries of the average definition of God.

Although, for whatever reasons, you may not want to accept Eru as God, it seems to me that you should accept that Eru, at least at the time of the writing of the Lord of the Rings, as well as thereafter, and I would even say beforehand, is intended to be God- in Middle-Earth.

Gurthang

11-29-2005, 01:49 PM

Although, for whatever reasons, you may not want to accept Eru as God, it seems to me that you should accept that Eru, at least at the time of the writing of the Lord of the Rings, as well as thereafter, and I would even say beforehand, is intended to be God- in Middle-Earth.

Yes, very true.

Is Eru God? Please note that the question isn't, "Is Eru the god of Middle-Earth?" (he pretty clearly is) but, is Eru the Elvish name for God (Jehovah)?

Do you think that he got it right because you wanted him to get it right? Did you find his arguments compelling because they were well-woven and because they jived with your own personal opinions?

But could we not make the same argument about you? That you want Eru to be God and so you see the facts and interpret them to mean Eru is God?

davem

11-29-2005, 02:29 PM

I wonder...
Throughout most of this thread, it seems to me, you have argued on the side of Eru is not God.
.

Actually, I've said that I think Eru was the same God Tolkien believed in & the one he worshipped. I do, however, think that Tolkien's concept of God was somewhat 'unorthodox', to say the least. Tolkien clearly found something in old world paganism that he felt was necessary, & he created a secondary world where pagan gods could exist under His God, rather than being cast out & demonised by Him.

LotR, taken as a stand alone novel, could have been written by a Pagan, & I think that's why so many Pagans have taken it to their hearts. There is nothing uniquely 'Christian' in LotR. Only when LotR is read in the light of the Sil does it become part of Tolkien's 'Christian' mythology. Let's face it, if there is a 'Deity' in LotR, it is the 'Goddess' Elbereth, not Eru. In fact, all the references to 'meaning' in LotR could be taken to apply to Her.

In short, I think if we only had LotR & knew nothing of its author's life & beliefs I can't help thinking that no Christian would make a claim to its being a Christian work by a Christian author - though they may notice some 'similarities' between Galadriel/Mary, Lembas/the Host, etc.

Feanor of the Peredhil

11-29-2005, 02:48 PM

Eru ... is intended to be God- in Middle-Earth.
Well duh. :p I thought we'd already been over that.

littlemanpoet

11-29-2005, 03:04 PM

In short, I think if we only had LotR & knew nothing of its author's life & beliefs I can't help thinking that no Christian would make a claim to its being a Christian work by a Christian author - though they may notice some 'similarities' between Galadriel/Mary, Lembas/the Host, etc.Actually, the history of the discussions surrounding LotR before the publishing of The Silmarillion are precisely the opposite of what you suggest. I remember many articles in a host of magazines that were quite specifically about Aragorn, Frodo, and Gandalf as specifically Christ figures - - before 1977. And that's just one example.

Like you, davem, I think that Tolkien has done us a service in revivifying the old pagan myths, because there were riches of truth in them. To read LotR as a pagan novel is certainly possible, but it still misses much. Too much that Tolkien included, on purpose.

To suggest that Tolkien became obsessed after LotR was published, to make it appear that there was something (Eru) in it that he hadn't put in there in the first place, doesn't square with the evidence. Tolkien plainly stated that LotR was consciously Catholic in the revision. Otherwise, Tolkien was faking himself out, and that might be going just a bit far.... It seems to me that you have to take huge efforts to wrestle the facts into this theory. Occam's Razor obtains here.

Regardless, the spiritual power in the books goes beyond anything in pagan myth. Of course, that's an opinion based on my personal perceptions, but that's what I experience when I read LotR.

The Saucepan Man

11-29-2005, 05:47 PM

Well I do declare! It appears that davem is arguing in support of the reader's freedom to intepret, as against the primacy of authorial intention ... :eek:

:p :D

Feanor of the Peredhil

11-29-2005, 07:20 PM

Well I do declare! It appears that davem is arguing in support of the reader's freedom to intepret, as against the primacy of authorial intention ...
Ah, but dear Wormcan Man, he's merely arguing for the adherence to the topic at hand: what the reader's interpretation is, as opposed to the author's intention. :p

Fordim Hedgethistle

11-29-2005, 07:53 PM

davem

11-30-2005, 05:27 AM

*Fordim falls off his chair clutching at his chest. After being revived, he is carried out on a stretcher muttering...*

There was no Legendarium. He made a point about interpretation without invoking the Legendarium. I...I can't believe it....please please Eru, or God, or whoever, or Eru/God....don't let him admit The Hobbit to the Legendarium...

Actually, all he did was state the obvious fact that its possible to read LotR as a stand alone novel (indeed, for most of its history that's how it had to be read) & that if it is read that way the reader's interpretation may be very different from that of reading it in the light of the Legendarium as a whole :p

Actually, the history of the discussions surrounding LotR before the publishing of The Silmarillion are precisely the opposite of what you suggest. I remember many articles in a host of magazines that were quite specifically about Aragorn, Frodo, and Gandalf as specifically Christ figures - - before 1977. And that's just one example..

Hutton was referring to the immediately post-LotR period. Tolkien actually refers to the accusations that there was an absence of religious themes/elements in LotR in The Road Goes Ever On - where he makes reference to the Elves' Hymns to Elbereth.

Hutton's point was that it was precisely readers who pointed out these 'similarities' & that Tolkien grabbed hold of these & played them up in order to point up his Catholic credentials.

littlemanpoet

11-30-2005, 10:55 AM

Ah, but dear Wormcan Man, he's merely arguing for the adherence to the topic at hand: what the reader's interpretation is, as opposed to the author's intention. :p

Ah, Wormcancloser of the Peredhy,
if the evidence is most weighty
such that author's intention
and reader interpretation
ought to be one thing,
then the reader may think
what s/he wishes all the day long
and still be wrong.

Tolkien grabbed hold of these & played them up in order to point up his Catholic credentials.Could you produce the evidence that Tolkien felt the need?

The Saucepan Man

11-30-2005, 11:06 AM

Now boreding at a platforum near you (again) ...

if the evidence is most weighty
such that author's intention
and reader interpretation
ought to be one thing,
then the reader may think
what s/he wishes all the day long
and still be wrong.Hmm. A recent opinion poll (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=12035&page=1) suggests otherwise. :p

Roa_Aoife

11-30-2005, 12:12 PM

Hmm. A recent opinion poll (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=12035&page=1) suggests otherwise. :p

Opinion polls don't really prove much. After all, an opinion poll from the 1300's would say the world was flat. The opinion poll on this discussion says Eru is God, but I doubt that the numbers would change anyone's opinion.

Fordim Hedgethistle

11-30-2005, 12:26 PM

Opinion polls don't really prove much.

*Fordim gasps, clutches his heart, and falls over dead*

The Saucepan Man

11-30-2005, 12:39 PM

Opinion polls don't really prove much.I would have to disagree. They provide, at a glance, the (stated) opinions of those polled, in this case a reasonably sized cross-section of Barrow-Downers.

You can make of such opinions what you will, but they can (depending upon the size and nature of the sample) be of use with regards to these kinds of questions where there is no definitive answer (or no feasible way of determining a definitive answer).

You can get up now, Fordim. ;)

davem

11-30-2005, 01:10 PM

Could you produce the evidence that Tolkien felt the need?

I think we can draw conclusions. In reference to the Elves' Hymn to Elbereth he states (The Road Goes Ever On) 'The Elves sing hymns to her. (These & other references to religion in LotR are frequently missed) ie he is clearly responding to accusations that there is no religion in LotR. In the Letters he repeatedly snatches at any references to Christianity by readers (to the extent that some of his responses are not actually sent, because he decides he has gone too far in emphasising the Christian 'connections').

Its clear that early critics did not pick up on the 'Christianity' that Tolkien states is there - but is it really there? If it can (& often is) read & enjoyed by readers who do not percieve any Christian elements in it (even ones familiar with the tenets of that faith) then Christianity is obviously not something that underlies the story.

I find it very interesting that when readers/reviewers/critics assigned to the story an underlying political allegory (War of the Ring = WWII) he roundly condemned the idea, but the vaguest suggestion of any 'similarity' between elements in the story & aspects of Christianity produced the most positive response. Let's face it, the similarities between Elbereth* & Isis are far stronger than those between Elbereth & Mary. His famous statemment that the book is 'a fundamentally Catholic work, unconsciously so at first, but consciously so in the revision' is simply not true - read HoM-e. Any 'revision' of the story was made for artistic reasons, or because he realised 'what really happened'. He even contradicted himself in statements in the Letters - in one he claims that the events at Mount Doom are an exemplification of the words in the Lord's Prayer 'Forgive us our tresspasses as we forgive those who tresspass against us. Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil'. In other letters he states that it is the inner dynamic of the story so far that dictated those events. The culminating events may well exemplify the words of Jesus, but Tolkien only 'realised' that after the book was published. I think its pretty clear that he wrote the story as a story, letting it flow & waiting till he realised 'what really happened'.

After publication he seems to have become distressed by statements that it was a religion-free work & eagerly took up every suggestion of an underlying Christianity. My feeling is that Tolkien never 'revised' LotR to make it 'fundamentally Christian & Catholic work' - except in his own mind after the fact. He wrote a story. Only after publication, when it wasn't recognised as the work of a Christian, did he feel he had to 'prove its credentials'.

* As she appears in LotR, that is.

alatar

11-30-2005, 02:16 PM

I would have to disagree. They provide, at a glance, the (stated) opinions of those polled, in this case a reasonably sized cross-section of Barrow-Downers.

You can make of such opinions what you will, but they can (depending upon the size and nature of the sample) be of use with regards to these kinds of questions where there is no definitive answer (or no feasible way of determining a definitive answer).

And of course I would disagree with that, though at this point I cannot even remember the original poll, let alone the question being asked ;).

In this poll, like many others, we are given limited choices. Assume a poll that asks, "Do you prefer vanilla or chocolate ice cream?" with the choices being *vanilla and *chocolate. Where does that leave me, a 'strawberry' fan? I could choose vanilla, as I prefer that over chocolate, but it's not really what I want to choose. Or do I not vote, as my choice is not available? And while I'm on the topic, I'm not even a big fan of ice cream, but prefer frozen yogurt. So if you can consider a preference for strawberry frozen yogurt to be a 'yes' vote for vanilla ice cream, then what is the poll truly measuring?

And actually, I'd pick coffee and a donut if I really had a choice of desserts, and so obviously I should have voted *chocolate.

And in regards to polls being a cross-section of the population, it should be obvious that only people who partake in polls...well...partake in polls, and so we leave a group completely out. Plus I would say that here at the Downs that only special people participate in these threads, mostly people with high pain thresholds...;)

Feanor of the Peredhil

11-30-2005, 02:41 PM

And in regards to polls being a cross-section of the population, it should be obvious that only people who partake in polls...well...partake in polls, and so we leave a group completely out. Plus I would say that here at the Downs that only special people participate in these threads, mostly people with high pain thresholds...;)
I agree with Al of the Tar-folks. In a truly comprehensive poll, there would be even the most random answers like "Well, if you consider God to be embodied by the campus squirrels where Fea goes to school, then heck yes!" even if that answer makes sense to only one person and hardly seems to pertain to the general group. Without the extra choices, a more serious one being "I don't know who God is, but when I find out, I'll tell you if he's the same dude as Eru", there will be a bunch of people left out of it.

And am I an extra special person, alatar, for participating in the thread without even having voted? ;)

Mithalwen

11-30-2005, 02:48 PM

Hear! Hear! I have clicked post reply umpteen times to justify my choice but the noise was making my ears bleed.

alatar

11-30-2005, 02:54 PM

And am I an extra special person, alatar, for participating in the thread without even having voted? ;)

But of course Fea - or is it Fey - you are an extra special person, as one might note that I never vote in polls either (don't want to cause some worldwide catastrophe via the butterfly effect ;) ) and people call me special...right before they run the other direction.

But anyway, I really see what the now-visible davem is saying. After receiving some criticism regarding the paganness of the LotR, JRRT continually points to 'similarities' and says, "See? There's yet another reference to Christianity."

Who can argue with the author? And if you all see something stellar in a post of mine that makes my point, surely I'll claim the accident to be intentional - diamond in the rough for those adept at digging, as it were, and not just some lump of compressed carbon.

Feanor of the Peredhil

11-30-2005, 03:11 PM

and people call me special...right before they run the other direction. Ah. I get special just before a favor is asked of me. ;)

Who can argue with the author? Not me! And when in doubt, fall back on "Well, the text doesn't explicitly state anything, so who cares?" :D

Since Tolkien didn't write anywhere the exact words "Okay guys, pay attention now: Eru is God.", it's really no skin off my nose whether he is or isn't. Call me a stubborn block-head that would be unable to see through a brick wall no matter how long a time given for it, but delving through subtlety in search of some Freudian concept of slightly hidden messages doesn't appeal to me unless I'm in it for the sheer hilarity of it all. Tolkien intended to secretly convey to us that the all-powerful Eru is God? No way, are you serious? He's also Santa Claus?!? Seriously though, you can find anything you intend to look for, if you simply know where to look. Gimli and Legolas as well as Sam and Frodo are gay. Elrond is sexist as shown by him not appointing females to the Fellowship. Celebrian was raped. Feanor wasn't nearly as bad as he was made out to be. Elves have ears shaped like maple leaves. Balrogs look like emus.

When you get a bunch of sophists running around with a point in their head that they're intent on, they can prove anything, though I'm perfectly willing to admit that that's what makes this argument so much fun. :D

Roa_Aoife

11-30-2005, 04:08 PM

When you get a bunch of sophists running around with a point in their head that they're intent on, they can prove anything, though I'm perfectly willing to admit that that's what makes this argument so much fun.

Perfectly stated, if I do say so. If you look at evidence to prove your own point, you can almost always do it. That's what we science folk call the danger of bias. To really get to the truth of the matter, you have to look at the evidence completely objectively, and without bias. This is, rather unfortunately, impossible for anyone who has an opinion (ie all of us) so the chances of ever figuring out what was supposed to be is nigh impossible.

All we have to go on is avgue textual references, the author's statements, and the author's possible motives. The motives have no proof that would hold up to a review board, court of law, etc, the text is vague and could be interpreted any way you want to, so the most concrete evidence we have are the author's statements, and those clearly say that Eru is God.

But you know what they say: "When all else fails, manipulate the data."

Feanor of the Peredhil

11-30-2005, 04:18 PM

But you know what they say: "When all else fails, manipulate the data."
75% polled disagree with this statement. The other 35% often forget that when manipulating data, they should make sure their numbers match up.

davem

11-30-2005, 04:33 PM

Seriously though, you can find anything you intend to look for, if you simply know where to look. But you know what they say: "When all else fails, manipulate the data."

Precisely. And I suspect this is pretty much what Tolkien did. I don't think he 'consciously revised' LotR during the writing phase to make it a Catholic work. I think he wrote it, gave it to the world, & was very surprised at accusations of a lack of spirituality, of pagan tendencies, &, most importantly of being 'juvenile'. When some readers & reviewers started to suggest it had a Christian dimension, Tolkien happilly took this up & convinced himself that he had written a 'fundamentally Christian & Catholic work'.

What it is, rather (I would say) is a work that came from his heart, & one that he didn't have much control over - he wrote & re-wrote it, till he found out 'what really happened'. He then attempted to understand it, make sense of it - mainly for himself, but also for the readers who quizzed him on it. I think we're talking something much closer to [i]revisionism[i] than 'revision'.

The Saucepan Man

11-30-2005, 07:04 PM

And of course I would disagree with that, though at this point I cannot even remember the original poll, let alone the question being asked.As I said, I consider that these types of poll can be of value, but that there value will depend upon the size and nature of the sample. And you are quite right. I should also have included the range and nature of the choices given as a further factor in determining their value. Taking these factors into account, I think that it can be possible to draw conclusions (albeit sometimes tentative ones) from them.

For example, with specific reference to the poll that I linked to, one can, at the very least, conclude from it that a sizeable majority of those Downers who responded (and therefore had an interest in, and a view on, the issue) were of the opinion that the meaning of LotR was to be found in the reader's experience rather than authorial intention (or any of the other given choices).

Who can argue with the author?A loaded question, if ever I heard one. However, I will content myself with pointing you in the direction of the Canonicity thread and the poll thread that I linked to (if you haven't already read them).

Since Tolkien didn't write anywhere the exact words "Okay guys, pay attention now: Eru is God.", it's really no skin off my nose whether he is or isn't.And even had he done so, it does not follow that we would be obliged to accept it.

Guinevere

11-30-2005, 07:31 PM

I finally finished reading the whole 5 pages of posts – another fascinating (but time-consuming) discussion!

I voted yes, not only because for Tolkien Eru meant God, but because he pretty much reflects my own conception of God. In fact, reading Tolkien’s works was rather like a revelation to me!!

I must admit that my own faith is rather vague – that is, I have a deep longing to believe in God, and with my feelings I do believe, but as soon as I start thinking rationally, I start doubting. There’s just too much injustice and suffering in the world to believe in a God that is omnipotent AND loving. It doesn’t need the direct experience of suffering – just read history (“a long defeat” indeed!) or listen to the news every day –it could lead one to despair! For years I just tried to evade thinking too much about that. It was reading Tolkien’s works and letters that caused me to reflect on my own belief again.

I feel rather like one man who wrote to Tolkien about his experience with LotR:
letter #328…I had a letter from a man, who classified himself as “an unbeliever, or at best a man of belatedly and dimly dawning religious feeling….. but you”, he said, “create a world in which some sort of faith seems to be everywhere without a visible source, like light from an invisible lamp.” (……) If sanctity inhabits his work or as a pervading light illumines it then it does not come from him but through him. And neither of you would perceive it in these terms unless it was with you also. Otherwise you would see and feel nothing,I think just because LotR is NOT overtly Christian , or religious at all, its morals appeal to so many different people.
As Tolkien said himself in letter 142 The religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism.And in letter 156 …I have purposely kept allusions to the highest matters down to mere hints, perceptible only by the most attentive, or kept them under unexplained symbolic forms.
posted by Mr.Underhill
It's interesting to me that he found, or sensed, that the best way to talk about the truths that he held so dear was to not talk about them, if you take my meaning. To portray the underlying truth without the trapping, or in a different trapping.
posted by Davem
If it can (& often is) read & enjoyed by readers who do not percieve any Christian elements in it (even ones familiar with the tenets of that faith) then Christianity is obviously not something that underlies the story.That way, Tolkien gives the reader the freedom to interpret it in his own way. (Many might be put off by overt Christianity, including myself!) Just because the allusions are so subtle and so general, they are working , and can be accepted by everyone.

from Letter131
I believe that legends and myths are largely made of “truth” and indeed present aspects of it that can only be received in this mode.Tolkien managed to merge these ancient truths with his Christian faith, and the result is very convincing (for me at least) . Also historically: the ancient pagan deities were very often turned into catholic saints!

On the whole I find the end of LotR a well-balanced mixture of sadness and hope. Hope without guarantees perhaps, but the book “lifts up my heart”. I get the comforting impression that a merciful providence is behind everything.

Now the Silmarillion is quite different. So sombre and pessimistic, everything seems doomed from the start. At first I found it really hard to believe that such tragic and hopeless stories like the one about Túrin were written by the same author… But the more I read in it – and especially after reading U.T., I grew more and more fond of it.
It seems to me that Tolkien's works, especially the Silmarillion, are partly his own way of pondering over those questions that engage us all: about death and immortality, good and evil, free will and providence and the meaning of suffering and injustice in the world.
And I think Davem has hit upon a truth (for me anyway) when he wrote:
Recently I've begun to wonder whether what we get from LotR is not 'satisfaction' a having our spiritual questions answered or our confusions & dilemmas resolved, but rather a 'confirmation' of our own doubts & uncertainties
I guess that’s why I sympathize with the Númenoreans saying
“For of us is required a blind trust, and a hope without assurance, knowing not what lies before us in a little while.”
And with king Meneldur asking “If either way may lead to evil, of what worth is choice ?”

Eru is inscrutable indeed (as is God in my eyes at least), yet there is some attempt at a justification

“"Thus even as Eru spoke to us shall beauty not before conceived be brought into Ëa, and evil yet be good to have been."
(Manwë to the other Valar)
"...and though in all lands love is now mingled with grief, it grows perhaps the greater"
(Haldir to the Fellowship)
And something similarly hopeful is expressed in letter #64 (1944).
All things and deeds have a value in themselves, apart from their "causes" and "effects" . No man can estimate what is really happening at the present sub specie aeternitatis.
All we do know, and that to a large extent by direct experience, is that evil labours with vast power and perpetual success - in vain : preparing only the soil for unexpected good to sprout in.

Davem, quoting Roa_Aoife
But you know what they say: "When all else fails, manipulate the data."

Precisely. And I suspect this is pretty much what Tolkien did.
Honestly, I’m surprised to hear you talking in such a way about Tolkien ! And I don’t think I would have liked the lecture of this Mr.Hutton (was that his name?) in Birmingham.
Davem:
What it is, rather (I would say) is a work that came from his heart, & one that he didn't have much control over - he wrote & re-wrote it, till he found out 'what really happened'. He then attempted to understand it, make sense of it - mainly for himself, but also for the readers who quizzed him on it.
That's more like it! :)

alatar

11-30-2005, 10:00 PM

A loaded question, if ever I heard one. However, I will content myself with pointing you in the direction of the Canonicity thread and the poll thread that I linked to (if you haven't already read them).

Apologies, as I was not able to complete the link...my computer's failsafe mechanism kicked in and so it reduced itself to ashes at the mention of the "C" thread.

Luckily I have sack clothe to match.

And note that it's easier to start with the answer and work backwards assembling the evidence to fit, as that way you're sure to reach the conclusion that the evidence points to 100% of the time. As long as no one was watching your backtracking, you can pretend that the evidence speaks for itself.

And Guinevere's post regarding the world light by an invisible lamp is excellent.

Formendacil

11-30-2005, 10:41 PM

Precisely. And I suspect this is pretty much what Tolkien did. I don't think he 'consciously revised' LotR during the writing phase to make it a Catholic work. I think he wrote it, gave it to the world, & was very surprised at accusations of a lack of spirituality, of pagan tendencies, &, most importantly of being 'juvenile'. When some readers & reviewers started to suggest it had a Christian dimension, Tolkien happilly took this up & convinced himself that he had written a 'fundamentally Christian & Catholic work'.

What it is, rather (I would say) is a work that came from his heart, & one that he didn't have much control over - he wrote & re-wrote it, till he found out 'what really happened'. He then attempted to understand it, make sense of it - mainly for himself, but also for the readers who quizzed him on it. I think we're talking something much closer to [i]revisionism[i] than 'revision'.

So you are saying then that Tolkien was lying?

I'm not saying that your theory is entirely discreditable, but it does make Tolkien's statement that it was CONSCIOUSLY Catholic in the revision to be either a misstatment, or- to take the facts in the most simply presented way, to be a lie.

Lies, as far as we are shown, are very much not in keeping with Tolkien's style (he was quite often blunt in his letters, as I'm sure you are aware), and it's very much not in keeping with his Catholic faith, which we know he was fanatical about.

There are definitely some thing about what you are saying that seem to ring true, Davem, but your theory is directly at odds with what Tolkien said, and I'm loathe to directly contradict a clear statement made by Tolkien himself.

Of course, the people on this forum would probably STILL give Balrogs wings even if Tolkien had deposited the same statement "Balrogs do not have wings" in the bank every year of his life, to be produced at the time of his death as the final authority in the Balrog wing debate. For some reasom, people seem to have a problem dealing with direct statements as meaning exactly what they say.

davem

12-01-2005, 05:35 AM

I'm not saying that your theory is entirely discreditable, but it does make Tolkien's statement that it was CONSCIOUSLY Catholic in the revision to be either a misstatment, or- to take the facts in the most simply presented way, to be a lie.

It certainly wasn't a 'lie' - it just wasn't a fact. CT has shown that his father's memory (in letters written/statements made many years after the fact) was not 100% - cf the statement that he 'halted for a year by Balin's Tomb'. His other statement in the Foreword, that it has 'no inner meaning in the author's intention', that it is 'merely' entertainment, clashes with statements in the letters where he as much as says that LotR is an intentionally Christian work & the 'similarities' between Mary/Galadriel Lembas/The Host were deliberate.

I think Tolkien had convinced himself that LotR was made 'consciously Catholic' in the revision - but (if you've read HoM-e) can you tell me where the evidence is for that?

As I said, I think Tolkien spent years after the publication of LotR attempting to understand it & make it fit with his beliefs. He constructed a Catholic interpretation of the story - which many of his readers (though not all) have accepted.

I don't know where the Legendarium came from - his constant references to 'finding out what really happened' rather than 'inventing' are clearly true & I think it was only the critical & readerly responses & challenges that made him actually start analysing it for meaning & conformity to his faith.

One point Hutton made in his talk: Tolkien's claim that LotR was about 'the elevation of the humble' & that this somehow confirmed its Christianity. Fairy stories were the 'literature' of ordinary folk, & their heroes tend to be ordinary, humble heroes - ie a 'humble flittle man elevated to the status of 'hero' is not a uniquely Christian theme. Tolkien supplied that interpretation of his Hobbit heroes & then claimed that tsuch things made it a specifically Christian story.

Not 'lying', then, but not exactly stating the 'facts'.

Lalwendë

12-01-2005, 08:27 AM

The full quote is, if I am not mistaken:

The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like `religion', to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism.

So Tolkien here says that this 'revision' consisted of excising any references to religious ritual. He does not say that he altered the rest as it was 'absorbed into the story'. I have to say, it was absorbed so well and with such subtlety that I entirely fail to see many of these references as specifically 'Catholic'.

davem used the example of 'the elevation of the humble' as being something Tolkien used to 'prove' the Christian credentials of his work - while it is actually a far more universal factor. This is just one of many examples throughout the Legendarium which can have mulitple meanings and interpretations. Symbolism such as sacrifice is not exclusive to Christianity, it is Universal. I'd wholeheartedly agree with Tolkien that his work is fundamentally religious, but in a truly Universal way.

I think that his infamous statement/soundbite can be re-interpreted as it is Tricksy. A 'fundamentally' religious and Catholic work may be said to have its roots in those things; the origins of the work were both from the 'religious' i.e. sacred but not necessarily Catholic (bearing in mind Tolkien was steeped in knowledge of Pagan literature, both European and Classical) and from the 'Catholic' i.e. his own idiosyncratic and intensely personal interpretation of Catholicism.

Tolkien seems to be saying that at first he did have reference to rites and rituals in his work (unconsciously, as though he could not help but do this) but that in order to make his work coherent as a representation of a Secondary World he had to ensure that such references were excised. The things which happen in his works follow his own (as a Catholic) moral standards (How could they not reflect his views on what is right and wrong behaviour? Are there many writers who would produce something which they found morally repugnant?) and he wrote of these 'unconsciously' at first.

When it came to revision of what he had written, he bore in mind (consciously) his own Primary World faith and ensured he had excised explicit references to this. Note that what was left was not Catholic, but 'religious', a very different kettle of fish.

His statement, if viewed as proof positive that he did revise his work to make it more Catholic actually does not make sense. If looked at that way then he seems to be saying "Well, I started off unable to do anything but write a Catholic work. Then I had to edit my work and realised it had to be a Catholic work so I removed all the Catholic references."

Bêthberry

12-01-2005, 08:54 AM

Lalwendë, that is a very interesting analysis of Tolkien's comment in theological terms. However, I have always interpreted Tolkiens comment about the absorption of the religious element into the story and the symbolism as an aesthetic statement.

To explain my interpretation, I compare LotR with Lewis' Narnia series. I must admit to complete failure to ever being able to finish reading Narnia, no matter how much I am delighted by the idea of a wordrobe into another world. I have tried, and tried recently as preparation for viewing the movie (the trailers of which attract me very much). Yet time and again I cannot get over the abject obviousness of Lewis' allegory. I find it wearyingly boring. I very much prefer the indeterminacy of Tolkien's hints and suggestions. Perhaps this says more about me as a reader than about either author but I think that Tolkien was a more astute storeyteller than Lewis. I think he had a surer hand in understanding what drives audiences/ readers to adopt stories keenly and closely and I think it was this concept of the relation between author and audience that drove his thoughts about the Catholic references rather than any theological desire per se.

davem

12-03-2005, 01:10 PM

I just found this in an essay by Verlyn Flieger, 'A Cautionary Tale' in an edition of The Chesterton Review (http://www.isi.org/journals/chesterton_review.html). The relevant issue is avaiable as a free download from the website.

Tolkien borrowed from the myths of northwestern Europe for the flavor of his stories, and much has been written about his debt to existing mythologies from Scandinavia to Sumer. Nevertheless, he wrote to father Robert Murray that The Lord of the Ringswas “a fundamentally religious and Catholic work” (Letters 172), and one might assume that nothing in the legendarium as a whole would contradict that. Rather surprisingly, a quick comparison between the two reveals some fundamental differences, and not just on the level of doctrine or creed. Tolkien’s is a far darker world than that envisioned by Christianity, and falls short of the promise and the hope that the older story holds out. Unlike the Judaeo-Christian mythos with which it is so often compared, and which tells of a world fallen through human willfulness and saved by sacrifice, Tolkien’s mythos as a whole begins with a fall long before humanity comes on the scene. He wrote of his story: I suppose a difference between this and what may be perhaps called Christian mythology is this. In the latter, the Fall of Man is subsequent to and a consequence (though not a necessary consequence) of the ‘Fall of the Angels’; a rebellion of created free will at a higher level than Man, but it is not clearly held (and in many versions not held at all) that this affected the ‘World’ in its nature: evil was brought in from outside, by Satan. In this [i.e. Tolkien’s own] Myth the rebellion of created free-will precedes creation of the world (Eä); and Eä has in it, subcreatively introduced, evil, rebellions, discordant elements of its own nature already when the Let it Be was spoken. The Fall, or corruption, therefore, of all things in it and all inhabitants of it, was a possibility if not inevitable. (Letters 286-87) Thus original sin (if one may borrow that term) enters the world in the very process of its coming to be, when the melodic theme that is the metaphor for creation is distorted by the clamorous and discordant counter-theme of the rebel demiurge Melkor. The resultant Music sets the tone for all that is to follow.
The supreme godhead, Eru/Iluvatar, who both proposes the theme and conducts the Music, is neither the Judaic God of Hosts who alternately punishes and rewards his people, nor the traditional Christian God of love and forgiveness. Rather, he is a curiously remote and for the most part inactive figure, uninvolved, with the exception of one cataclysmic moment, in the world he has conceived. The lesser demiurgic powers, the Valar, have only partial comprehension of the world they have helped to make. The primary heroes, the Elves, are gifted beings caught in a web of pride, power, and deceit—largely of their own weaving—that hampers and constrains every effort they make to get free of it. The secondary heroes, Men, are courageous but shortsighted blunderers with but little sense of history and even less comprehension of their place in the larger scheme of things.

Roa_Aoife

12-03-2005, 07:31 PM

I can't let this go unanswered. It seems that one Verlyn Flieger has a rather onesided view of Christian beliefs. Unfortunately, this shortcoming is shared by far too many people, on all sides of every debate involving it.

Tolkien’s is a far darker world than that envisioned by Christianity, and falls short of the promise and the hope that the older story holds out. Unlike the Judaeo-Christian mythos with which it is so often compared, and which tells of a world fallen through human willfulness and saved by sacrifice, Tolkien’s mythos as a whole begins with a fall long before humanity comes on the scene

If one truly studies the Bible where it describes Mankind as a whole, the world is a very dark and ugly place, where we screw up constantly, and hope for us is all but gone.

So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them." -Gen 6:7

29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. -Rom 1:29-30

19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. ....48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. -Math 5:19-20, 48

Right away, we have a sense of hopelessness. The world is evil, fallen, and the only way around it is perfection or mercy.

In this [i.e. Tolkien’s own] Myth the rebellion of created free-will precedes creation of the world (Eä); and Eä has in it, subcreatively introduced, evil, rebellions, discordant elements of its own nature already when the Let it Be was spoken. The Fall, or corruption, therefore, of all things in it and all inhabitants of it, was a possibility if not inevitable. (Letters 286-87)

In truth, we don't know when the fall of Satan took place, all we know is that it took place sometime before the fall of Man, and that it was indeed Satan who pled to the free-will of both Eve and Adam. It has been said that the Angelic fall happened after the creation of the world, some say during, and other's say well before. There is nothing to say that the angels weren't involved in some way, though there certainly isn't anything saying they were.

Many would say that the fall was inevetible because of how things were set up in the Garden. I could argue till I'm blue in the face about why the fall happened, why there was a forbidden tree in the first place, and what God was doing while all this was going on (surely He was aware) but that would be a bit off topic. All I'll say is that the Fall was an onvious possiblity, maybe it was even supposed to happen.

Rather, he is a curiously remote and for the most part inactive figure, uninvolved, with the exception of one cataclysmic moment, in the world he has conceived.

Uninvolved? He may have allowed the Ainur, with their free will, to sing in dischord, but everytime Eru wove the dischord into an even more wonderful melody than had been before. He turns evil to good, sets up the Valar to help and guide his children, who, though imperfect follow Him as best they can. He even moves in some less obvious ways, as pointed out by LMP.

davem

12-04-2005, 04:43 AM

:
In this [i.e. Tolkien’s own] Myth the rebellion of created free-will precedes creation of the world (Eä); and Eä has in it, subcreatively introduced, evil, rebellions, discordant elements of its own nature already when the Let it Be was spoken. The Fall, or corruption, therefore, of all things in it and all inhabitants of it, was a possibility if not inevitable. (Letters 286-87)

In truth, we don't know when the fall of Satan took place, all we know is that it took place sometime before the fall of Man, and that it was indeed Satan who pled to the free-will of both Eve and Adam. It has been said that the Angelic fall happened after the creation of the world, some say during, and other's say well before. There is nothing to say that the angels weren't involved in some way, though there certainly isn't anything saying they were.

Ah, but the quote given is from Tolkien himself, so he clearly distinguished his myth from that of Christianity in that sense. The point is that the Fall in Judeo-Christian myth comes about as a result of Adam & Eve's 'sin' in the Garden post Creation. In Tolkien's myth the world is created already 'marred' by Melkor's interventions in the Music. As Tolkien stated 'The Fall, or corruption, therefore, of all things in it and all inhabitants of it, was a possibility if not inevitable'.'

I think those last three words sum up the difference perfectly - in Judeo-Christian myth the Fall is a tragedy because it didn't have to happen. Tolkien clearly implies that if a Fall was not necessarily 'inevitable' (though I wonder from his words whether he didn't actually consider it was inevitable) it was certainly very likely. God creates a world which He considers 'Good', Eru creates a world which is already flawed in such a way that a Fall is 'an accident waiting to happen'. Eru chose to allow Melkor's dissonance to be included in the creation. Why? To give Melkor the chance to repent when he saw his 'dissonance' made real? Fine, but real people area going to suffer as a resullt of that act of compassion.

Or was it all about 'free will' - too easy. If I leave a group of of children alone in a room where I have placed a load of sharp knives in full view because they have 'free will' as far as what they do with those knives, am I thereby absolved of any responsibility as to what they do? Would I be justified in punishing those children if they stabbed each other?

In short, Tolkien clearly saw a difference between his myth & the Biblical story....

Then again, which of his letters do we go with - in other letters he implies there is no difference: Eru is God, Middle-earth is our world. This illustrates Hutton's point about the Letters - we can't depend on them to present us with a coherent view re the theology of Middle-earth & its correspondence or otherwise with Christianity. He wanted the two to match up, & wherever posssible he tried to make them 'fit'. There were certain things that didn't match up, that he couldn't make match up, & in those instances he was forced to admit that (as in the letter quoted by Fleiger). His later writings show his attempt (need???) to make them fit. The whole 'Myths Transformed' section of HoM-e 10 shows him trying to force his creation into the Judeo-Christian model & (as even Christopher acknowledges) failing to do so & in the process harming his own creation. He wanted the two to match up perfectly, but he couldn't make them do so.

His mythology was his real religion, what he really believed, how he really thought the world worked. Yet he considered himself an orthodox Catholic. Doublethink I would suggest. And this doublethink allowed him to create one of the greatest works of Art in the history of literature. Only when he was challenged as to its unorthodoxy was he backed into a corner. Like Frodo on Amon Hen, caught between the Voice & the Eye, he writhed.

Roa_Aoife

12-04-2005, 09:51 AM

I think those last three words sum up the difference perfectly - in Judeo-Christian myth the Fall is a tragedy because it didn't have to happen. Tolkien clearly implies that if a Fall was not necessarily 'inevitable' (though I wonder from his words whether he didn't actually consider it was inevitable) it was certainly very likely. God creates a world which He considers 'Good', Eru creates a world which is already flawed in such a way that a Fall is 'an accident waiting to happen'. Eru chose to allow Melkor's dissonance to be included in the creation. Why? To give Melkor the chance to repent when he saw his 'dissonance' made real? Fine, but real people area going to suffer as a resullt of that act of compassion.

Or was it all about 'free will' - too easy. If I leave a group of of children alone in a room where I have placed a load of sharp knives in full view because they have 'free will' as far as what they do with those knives, am I thereby absolved of any responsibility as to what they do? Would I be justified in punishing those children if they stabbed each other?

Congratulations, you just brought up one of the biggest debates in Christianity today. If Tolkien thought the Fall of Man was inevitable, I can bring to mind several Theologians who would disagree. This debate has been going around for a long time, even from the Middle Ages when the Calvinists showed up. Yes, God declares the world good, but that doesn't mean it was supposed to stay that way. Initially, Ea was good, too, until Melkor started messing things up. Many think the Fall of Man was a plan of God's all along- certainly he knew it was going to happen before the world was created (that's what Omniscient means...) but He created it anyway, and then allowed it to occur.

In the Garden of Eden, God set up a failure- the Tree- allowed Satan in to tempt Adam and Eve, and then He wasn't there at the crucial moment. Many Theologians look at this and say it was inevitable. Given Tolkien's pessimisstic view of God, it's possible that he belonged to this school of thought. Therefore, perhaps he wasn't trying to insert Catholicism into the story, but trying to make it look more positive and optimistic, as was the status quo of that time. Looking like a Calvinist (which is a sect of Protestantism) would not be acceptable to an Orthodox Catholic.

So, if we can't trust his statements, and the text is vague, and there's no hard evidence about his mindset, what are we left with? Our own interpretations? Eru help us....

EDIT: My pastor made my point about the fall of Man for me this morning. "We tend to view the fall like this: God created a perfect world, and declared it good. Then Adam and Eve come along and screw it all up and 'Ooops!' God is caught off guard. He says, 'Oh no! Whatdo I do? Anyone have any ideas?' Jesus stands up in the back and says, 'It's ok, Dad, I have a plan.' It seems silly, but that's how we really think of it. God had a perfect plan A, we screwed it up, and He had to come up with a Plan B. The truth is more likely to be that God planned in the Fall, that in fact it was part of his Perfect Plan A to reveal His love through our reconciliation to Him. The Fall of Man was supposed to happen."

This is not a widely accepted thought, especially not in Catholicism. If this is the idea that Tolkien had, in some form, he may have tried later to bring it back to the more accepted "We screwed up God's Plan, now we have to pay for it." Galileo, when he suggested the world was round, was nearly excommunicated untill he recanted his idea. Tolkien may have felt the same pressure to conform to the Catholic Church, not by inserting Christianity, but by fixing the view of it, even openly admitting that his version didn't coincide with the truth, even if that thruth may have been wrong.

alatar

12-14-2005, 06:35 AM

This question came to me while listening to a radio discussion of the Christian God's omniscience in regards to free will. The caller was perplexed, as having free will in the same universe with a God who knew the future didn't seem to be tenable.

The show host responded that the omniscient God sees the future as we see the/our past. We do not cause things to happen in the past, yet can have full knowledge of the events.

Anyway, the question then is: Is Tolkien's world Eru's replay? In the Christian world I assume that even though God knows the future, we are still moving from some start point in time to some other for the first time - it's all a new game. The future has yet to happen, and we're playing the game to some end.

Tolkien's God Eru has already played the game once, and Arda is a replay. Surely I know that there are new things that arise in the playing of Arda that might not have been heard in the Music, but I assume that Eru heard all themes, notes, etc, and from His perspective, Arda's life is a replay.

How does Tolkien reconcile these differences in 'theology?'

Hope that that makes sense.

HerenIstarion

12-14-2005, 07:07 AM

alatar, it seems to me you repeat the mistake the show caller made - how exactly Eru's omniscience differs from real world God's omniscience?

Indeed, did Eru 'play the game' once, or was it a rather a 'theme' - a rehearsal, a plan, rails along which the train of the world would move?

I can't see 'difference of ideologies' here. The 'rehearsal' was made for Ainur's sake, to let them see what it was all about, to give them 'general idea', not to help Eru see what He was doing.

Besides, terms 'first time', 'second time' seem inapplicable to me in the case - the Music was before world's time, and if there is any other kind of time in the Halls of Eru we do not know.

I once made a following analogy, I believe it may be applicable here:

I can suggest you another mental image of a man looking upon a rope stretched on the table. Both, table (space) and rope (time), are made by man (God), but man is not bound to be inside either. The picture is lame for if any ant (human, elf) was to move along the rope, it would imply some passage of time by itself. But if there was no time for a man (God) than he would be able to see an ant (human, elf) at any given moment of it’s progress along the rope (time). Neither it means that watching ant crawling along the line is somehow influencing it’s progress, i e 'predestining' it

Coming from Halls of Mandos and Elvish Free Will (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?t=120).

Let's further tune the image by saying Man at the Table may be seeing an Ant for each given moment of it's progress along the Rope, but all individual Ants are, in fact, same Ant stretched through the length of the Rope-Time.

Bêthberry

12-14-2005, 07:35 AM

I can't let this go unanswered. . . .
In truth, we don't know when the fall of Satan took place, all we know is that it took place sometime before the fall of Man, and that it was indeed Satan who pled to the free-will of both Eve and Adam.

And while I am not sure how this relates to Tolkien, I can't let this go unanswered. ;)

Actually, the Bible does not tell us it was "Satan" who instigated the Fall by messing with Eve's mind. Our contemporary concept of Satan is very much derived from New Testament sources and, even, Milton's Paradise Lost, which is a work on the Vatican's list of proscribed works for its irreglarities in dogma. In fact, satan in much of at least the Hebrew Bible is simply a minion of God who helps to do God's work by challenging people, to see if they are truly good. (He gives God the idea to make Job prove his faith.) He is not a full blown adversary until far later in Christian history.

Genesis3:1 reads:
The serpent was more crafty than any wild creature that the Lord God had made. The New English Bible: Oxford Study Edition

(The King James Bible uses "subtil" rather than "crafty" and "beast of the field" for "wild creature".)

A footnote to the study edition notes:

An ancient extrabiblical story tells how a serpent stole the plant which would have given immortality to man.It was believed that when the snake shed his skin, he was rejuvenated. . . .The idea of the serpent as a primeval adversary of God, indeed, the Devil, arose much later (See Wis.2.24).

I don't know if Tolkien would have been aware of this ancient myth about immortality, nor what his understanding of Satan was, but at least it is possible to think that he recognised the serpent was one of God's creations, just as Melkor is one of Eru's creations. Good is not good until it is actively tested and proven against its obverse.

alatar

12-14-2005, 02:53 PM

alatar, it seems to me you repeat the mistake the show caller made - how exactly Eru's omniscience differs from real world God's omniscience?

Thank you for your reply and analogy. In regards to omniscience, one has to assume that omniscience = omniscience, independent of bearer as the word means what it means. My question, maybe poorly stated, is that the Christian God to my knowledge did not preplay the game. He may have already have watched it, being God and all, but regarding the individual players, it was all new and never 'sung' before. My understanding of Eru is that he orchestrated the Ainur's song, recorded it then played it back as Arda. He, being God and all, knew what was sung before any note was uttered. Now the Ainur, players in the theme, not only played in the subsequent replay but participated in and even remembered the initial singing. Is this same foreknowledge/replay idea in beings less than omniscient found within Christian theology?

In ME we have actors that obtain foreknowledge as they remember the original Music/hear echoes of the Music whereas in Christianity (I assume) prediction/foreknowledge comes directly and only from God.

davem

12-14-2005, 03:26 PM

Surely its possible that the Music & Ea are 'simultaneous' events. The Music happens outside the world of time & Ea is its 'reflection'. Certainly, from Eru's perspective if all things are known they would all be known simultaneously. There's no need for Ea to be a 'replay' of the Music. If the Music happened in 'Eternity' it cannot therefore have happened 'before' anything (or 'after') for that matter. Perhaps we're talking 'above/below' rather than 'before/after'?

Lalwendë

12-14-2005, 03:58 PM

In ME we have actors that obtain foreknowledge as they remember the original Music/hear echoes of the Music whereas in Christianity (I assume) prediction/foreknowledge comes directly and only from God.

Surely its possible that the Music & Ea are 'simultaneous' events. The Music happens outside the world of time & Ea is its 'reflection'. Certainly, from Eru's perspective if all things are known they would all be known simultaneously. There's no need for Ea to be a 'replay' of the Music. If the Music happened in 'Eternity' it cannot therefore have happened 'before' anything (or 'after') for that matter. Perhaps we're talking 'above/below' rather than 'before/after'?

Ea itself could be the echo of the Music. Maybe, so is everything contained therein - at least everything that is not Ainur (or maybe they too are part of that echo, or become part of it if they choose to enter the world?). When a person has foresight it may be, as alatar suggests, that they can hear this echo more clearly; this would make sense in the case of Elves who do not die as they would have had not only more time to make sense of the music, but being outside the constraints of time they may be more attuned to these echoes.

It makes me wonder what would happen if the echo ceased. Would the world end?

alatar

12-14-2005, 04:41 PM

Is the echo God?

And again, is my perceived difference in foreknowledge in the two different worlds a problem for Tolkien - one from God and one 'external' of God?

davem

12-14-2005, 05:13 PM

Is the echo God?

And again, is my perceived difference in foreknowledge in the two different worlds a problem for Tolkien - one from God and one 'external' of God?

My own feeling is that we're dealing with emanations/harmonics (as in Qabala for instance) ie Ea is a 'lower' harmonic of the Music, 'produced' by it but happening simultaneously with it.

Roa_Aoife

12-14-2005, 07:49 PM

Actually, the Bible does not tell us it was "Satan" who instigated the Fall by messing with Eve's mind. Our contemporary concept of Satan is very much derived from New Testament sources.

If we use scripture to validate a point, we must take all of scripture as one. Just because Satan’s role isn’t clarified as the serpent until Revelation:

The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him. Revelation 12:9

He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.
Revelation 20:2

Doesn’t mean we should disregard the claim. We cannot pick and choose which parts are true and which aren’t- that’s manipulation.

In fact, Satan in much of at least the Hebrew Bible is simply a minion of God who helps to do God's work by challenging people, to see if they are truly good. (He gives God the idea to make Job prove his faith.) He is not a full blown adversary until far later in Christian history.

Oh, really?

Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel.
1 Chronicles 21:1

23 "In the latter part of their reign, when rebels have become completely wicked, a stern-faced king, a master of intrigue, will arise. 24 He will become very strong, but not by his own power. He will cause astounding devastation and will succeed in whatever he does. He will destroy the mighty men and the holy people. 25 He will cause deceit to prosper, and he will consider himself superior. When they feel secure, he will destroy many and take his stand against the Prince of princes. Yet he will be destroyed, but not by human power.
Daniel 8:23-25

6 One day the angels [a] came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan [b] also came with them.
Job 1:6
(Note: Satan comes from the Hebrew word for accuser.)

Satan in the Old Testament it clearly regarded as the enemy of Mankind, but even in his rebellion, he cannot deny God’s will. He did not “give God the idea,” rather, God allowed him to do his worst in order to create a much greater victory, a way of revealing Himself to his people.

It is important to recognize that Satan is not the opposite of God. He is the opposite of Michael. To be the opposite of God, he would have to be equal to God, and that he can never achieve.

As for the omniscience, the Music, and Ea: It wasn’t really that Ea was a replay; rather, the music was a pre-play, if that makes any sense. I think that Eru knew what was going to happen, and then allowed things to progress to a greater melody (much as God used Satan in the book of Job ;) ). It’s easy to suggest that God had a general plan in mind when starting things out. Eru, being omniscient, would have known before the music how everything would work out. God, being omniscient, would have known how everything would work out before Genesis 1:1.

Aiwendil

12-14-2005, 08:54 PM

Roa_Aoife wrote:
We cannot pick and choose which parts are true and which aren’t- that’s manipulation.

But what was being discussed was not "which parts are true" (if any).

And I think a great number of Jews would disagree about having to take both Testaments or nothing . . .

6 One day the angels [a] came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan [b] also came with them.

I could be very pedantic and say that even if one grants that "angels" does not include "Satan", that does not mean that Satan is not a minion of God. If you look at his role in the Old Testament as a whole, it is really quite different from that in the New Testament. I think this is the point Bethberry was making (though I invite her to correct me if I'm wrong).

In any case, it seems to me that what's relevant to a discussion of Tolkien's works is Tolkien's belief concerning Satan's fall. And he quite clearly stated, as Davem quoted:

I suppose a difference between this and what may be perhaps called Christian mythology is this. In the latter, the Fall of Man is subsequent to and a consequence (though not a necessary consequence) of the ‘Fall of the Angels’; a rebellion of created free will at a higher level than Man, but it is not clearly held (and in many versions not held at all) that this affected the ‘World’ in its nature: evil was brought in from outside, by Satan. In this [i.e. Tolkien’s own] Myth the rebellion of created free-will precedes creation of the world (Eä); and Eä has in it, subcreatively introduced, evil, rebellions, discordant elements of its own nature already when the Let it Be was spoken. The Fall, or corruption, therefore, of all things in it and all inhabitants of it, was a possibility if not inevitable. (Letters 286-87)

HerenIstarion

12-15-2005, 12:53 AM

If the Music happened in 'Eternity' it cannot therefore have happened 'before' anything (or 'after') for that matter. Perhaps we're talking 'above/below' rather than 'before/after'?

Does it matter? What changes by replacing 'temporal' terms with 'spatial' ones? With equal success, I may have said that Music happened a little to the left from the World. The fact is that we do not know relation between 'eternity' and 'time'. Per instance, my Table-Rope analogy suggests just another term - 'outside'. It would suffice to say Time and Eternity are things apart. To me, though, it seems, that eternity may be like a three (or more) -dimensional time, and part of it which is 1-D 'vectorial flow' is our Time (or part of it we percieve so).

Simultaneous - well may be. It is for an 'ant on the rope' that events seem to replace one another in succession of 'time-flow'.

is my perceived difference in foreknowledge in the two different worlds a problem for Tolkien

I don't think it is. In 'real world' theology, it is not (as far as my knowledge reaches, and that is quite limited store) defined how much of the World's history do the angels know. But even taking as granted that angels do not know, and Valar do, what difference it makes for relation between Eru and Eruhini, and between Man and Creator? How exactly knowledge that some number of angels may have known what would have happened to you in any given moment, changes your attitude? Imagine that you are thirsty, and further that I know about the fact. How does the fact change your thirst? Does water taste worse for the fact I knew you would drink it?

In Orthodox theology there is a term 'teogumen' (if I remember it correctly). I could not find translation employing online resources, but generally it stands for 'idea of a person in faith, which is not officially accepted by the Church, but does not contradict it's general teaching and is acceptable to be had by the person'. It seems to me that God's Word (which is not defined in Bible as to what did it sound like) seen as Music is such a 'teogumen'. It seems to me that Host of Angels (as Valar) who may have 'worked' in Creation (even if after it was accomplished), since we do not have direct indication that they did not take any part in 'working' in it, may be a 'teogumen' as well.

Satan/Minion - it seems to me wonderfully rendered with Melkor/change of the name to Morgoth, as a mark of turning point in his 'career'.

It seems to me...

davem

12-15-2005, 03:37 AM

Does it matter? What changes by replacing 'temporal' terms with 'spatial' ones? With equal success, I may have said that Music happened a little to the left from the World. The fact is that we do not know relation between 'eternity' and 'time'.

I suppose the Music is Myth/Theology while Ea is, in a sense Legend/History (the presence of 'immortal' beings - the Elves - who are alive in that period & remain in the world down to the 'present' of LotR means the world of Legend is also the world of History, which complicates things somewhat).

I think 'what changes' is how we think of the relationship between the Music & Ea. Was the Music in a sense 'over' before Ea began? From reading Ainulindale it may seem so, but Tolkien is having to use language to communicate ideas & concepts for which it was not designed (language originated in the need to communicate 'Don't go into those trees - there's a sabre-toothed tiger in there' & 'Give me some of that mammoth fricasee', etc).

I really think we are dealing with 'emanations'/'harmonics'. as in Qabalah, where each Sephirah emanates the succeeding ones http://www.crystalinks.com/kabala.html. (I'd speculate that we could place Eru in Tiphareth, the sixth Sephirah (TIPERETH...THE SUN, HARMONY, BEAUTY, PERFECTION, UNITY, CREATION), the Ainur in Hod & Netzach (seven NEDZACH...THE LOVER, VENUS, ART, CREATIVITY INSPIRATION & EROTIC SPIRITUALITY & eight HOD...THE INTELLECT, MERCURY, COMMUNICATION), the Music in Yesod (nine YESOD...THE MOON, VISION & DEEP MEMORY, THE CYCLES IN & AROUND US, ILLUSION) & Ea as the tenth MALKUTH... PHYSICAL REALITY, DEATH, PAIN, HEALING) - but that's just an idea. The point is that in Qabala all the Sephirah exist within the first, the sephira of 'God'/Primal being'. Process may occur in the higher spheres, but 'Time' only comes into being in the tenth. Of course, other attributions/allocations are possible - Manwe can be associated with Sephirah four (CHESED...THE RULER, MAJESTY, POWER & AUTHORITY, CONSOLIDATOR OF THINGS). Varda with Sephirah three( BINAH...YIN ENERGY, COMPASSION, PURE LOVE & UNDERSTANDING, THE COSMIC MOTHER), Orome with Sephirah five (GEBURAH...THE WARRIOR, SPSERER OF MARS, STRENGTH, JUSTICE, PHYSICAL POWER) etc, but I digress.

alatar

12-15-2005, 01:22 PM

The fact is that we do not know relation between 'eternity' and 'time'.

Isn't time the unit of eternity? And though the universe is seemingly infinite, and may have been here so long that it seems to be eternal, it had a starting point, and may even have boundaries, and so is not eternal. Eru may be eternal but his creations have starting points.

I have no idea what point I was attempting to make ;).

But even taking as granted that angels do not know, and Valar do, what difference it makes for relation between Eru and Eruhini, and between Man and Creator?

How about humans that have preknowledge? In Arda it could be, as someone has noted, a special or attentive ear for the Music. On Earth it can only be via direct revelation. Does Satan hear the Music as I assume that God does not clue him in on His plan?

In Orthodox theology there is a term 'teogumen' (if I remember it correctly). It seems to me that Host of Angels (as Valar) who may have 'worked' in Creation (even if after it was accomplished), since we do not have direct indication that they did not take any part in 'working' in it, may be a 'teogumen' as well.

Do we assume that angels, like their ME counterparts, have creative powers? Though Manwë had to check in now and again when making a big change (drowning Númenor), he still was King of Arda and changed things therein. Are there Christian/Judaic examples of angels with similar powers? Though this may seem trivial, if angels have such powers then what would stop Satan from mascarading as a prophet or messianic figure?

Tolkien's Satan heard the Music, had creative powers (though did not have access to the 'fire') and was a visible physical force in Arda.

davem

12-15-2005, 03:06 PM

Do we assume that angels, like their ME counterparts, have creative powers?

I'm not sure the Valar 'create' as such. I think they 'sub-create'. The true source of creation is Eru, who is sole possessor of the Secret Fire. The Valar, in the words of Gandalf are 'Servants of the Secret Fire' - only Melkor (those who followed him, like Sauron, tried to possess it (& failed). The Valar attempted to do the will of Eru, serving as the means of creation (like living 'tools', if you like).

Lalwendë

12-15-2005, 04:01 PM

Time does matter, as it's a measurable thing, while those things which are 'outside time' are immeasurable - things like God or Eru. So if the Music happened outside Time we couldn't (or beings in Ea couldn't) necessarily pinpoint a beginning or an end, a little like the idea of God being the Alpha and the Omega, both beginning and end.

Time only seems to exist in Ea itself, as there is also the Void, which is outside this. I say that as the Void is not necessarily empty (Ungoliant came from the Void for example) as would be say, a void space as we understand it, but it is outside the Music and Time. A fitting place to put Melkor?

Aiwendil

12-15-2005, 04:39 PM

Davem wrote:
The true source of creation is Eru, who is sole possessor of the Secret Fire.

True, but consider Eru's words to the Ainur:

Of the theme that I have declared to you, I will now that ye make in harmony together a Great Music. And since I have kindled you with the Flame Imperishable, ye shall show forth your powers in adorning this theme, each with his own thoughts and devices, if he will.

So because they have been 'kindled' with the Flame Imperishable, they do have a degree of creative power. The theme is Iluvatar's but the Ainur 'adorn' it with their 'own thoughts and devices'. The role of the Valar is not, I think, merely to carry out the designs of Eru like 'living tools'; they embellish that design with their own free will - even if their creative powers are ultimately derivative of Eru's.

Bêthberry

12-15-2005, 04:43 PM

Roa_Aoife wrote:
Quote:
We cannot pick and choose which parts are true and which aren’t- that’s manipulation.

But what was being discussed was not "which parts are true" (if any).

And I think a great number of Jews would disagree about having to take both Testaments or nothing . . .

Quote:
6 One day the angels [a] came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them.

I could be very pedantic and say that even if one grants that "angels" does not include "Satan", that does not mean that Satan is not a minion of God. If you look at his role in the Old Testament as a whole, it is really quite different from that in the New Testament. I think this is the point Bethberry was making (though I invite her to correct me if I'm wrong).

Yes, thank you, that was the point I wanted to make, Aiwendil, that there is in fact a gradual accretion to the concept of Satan throughout the Bible, and that early ideas about him were rather different from those developed later, as is suggested in Elaine Pagel's The History of Satan, which is reviewed here (http://www.richmondreview.co.uk/books/origin.html) . Even the online Catholic Encyclopedia says

The account of the fall of our First Parents (Genesis 3) is couched in such terms that it is impossible to see in it anything more than the acknowledgment of the existence of a principle of evil who was jealous of the human race.

In any case, it seems to me that what's relevant to a discussion of Tolkien's works is Tolkien's belief concerning Satan's fall. And he quite clearly stated, as Davem quoted:

Quote:
I suppose a difference between this and what may be perhaps called Christian mythology is this. In the latter, the Fall of Man is subsequent to and a consequence (though not a necessary consequence) of the ‘Fall of the Angels’; a rebellion of created free will at a higher level than Man, but it is not clearly held (and in many versions not held at all) that this affected the ‘World’ in its nature: evil was brought in from outside, by Satan. In this [i.e. Tolkien’s own] Myth the rebellion of created free-will precedes creation of the world (Eä); and Eä has in it, subcreatively introduced, evil, rebellions, discordant elements of its own nature already when the Let it Be was spoken. The Fall, or corruption, therefore, of all things in it and all inhabitants of it, was a possibility if not inevitable. (Letters 286-87)

What I find interesting here is the idea that the angels had free will in Christian theology. I suppose one must reach this conclusion to account for the fallen angels, but the general gist of the "Angels" article in the CE (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01476d.htm) is that the angels were emissary's of God's will. One can say that they had free will to accept this role or not, but by and large it would appear that they were merely instruments.

The angels of the Bible generally appear in the role of God's messengers to mankind. They are His instruments by whom He communicates His will to men....

I think this means they would not be capable of Tolkien's "sub-creation." Would this be another instance where Tolkien's 'theology' in fact deviates from his Christian beliefs?

As for my thoughts on time, which is intriguing most of you here on this thread, well, it is woefully little available to me to engage in a timely fashion.

Roa_Aoife

12-15-2005, 07:11 PM

And I think a great number of Jews would disagree about having to take both Testaments or nothing . . .

We aren't discussing Judeism, we're discusing Catholicism, and how well Tolkien's world meshes with it.

Even the online Catholic Encyclopedia says

Quote:

The account of the fall of our First Parents (Genesis 3) is couched in such terms that it is impossible to see in it anything more than the acknowledgment of the existence of a principle of evil who was jealous of the human race.

The only principle evil ever mentioned in Scripture is Satan, unless you know of another. And, as that is a Catholic Encyclopedia, and they hold all of scripture to be true, I doubt they would deny the relevance of latter passages declaring that Satan is indeed the serpent. If we look at it through the scope of Christianity, then when a piece of scripture was added means very little- it's the point being made that matters.

One can say that they had free will to accept this role or not, but by and large it would appear that they were merely instruments.

The free will of angels is a largely debated subject, and their role in Creation is unclear. One can point to passages that seem to discourage the idea:

19 The LORD has established his throne in heaven,
and his kingdom rules over all.
20 Praise the LORD, you his angels,
you mighty ones who do his bidding,
who obey his word.
21 Praise the LORD, all his heavenly hosts,
you his servants who do his will.
Psalm 103:19-21

16 When the angel stretched out his hand to destroy Jerusalem, the LORD was grieved because of the calamity and said to the angel who was afflicting the people, "Enough! Withdraw your hand." The angel of the LORD was then at the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite.
2 Samuel 24:16

9 I asked, "What are these, my lord?"
The angel who was talking with me answered, "I will show you what they are." 10 Then the man standing among the myrtle trees explained, "They are the ones the LORD has sent to go throughout the earth." 11 And they reported to the angel of the LORD, who was standing among the myrtle trees, "We have gone throughout the earth and found the whole world at rest and in peace."
Zechariah 1:9-11

However, one can also find passages that support the free will of angels:

17 'Can a mortal be more righteous than God?
Can a man be more pure than his Maker?
18 If God places no trust in his servants,
if he charges his angels with error,
19 how much more those who live in houses of clay,
whose foundations are in the dust,
who are crushed more readily than a moth!
Job 4:17-19
(God finds error with the angels- could they make a mistake if they had no free will?)

12 Then the angel of the LORD said, "LORD Almighty, how long will you withhold mercy from Jerusalem and from the towns of Judah, which you have been angry with these seventy years?"
Zechariah 1:12
(The angel questions God- not possible with out free will)

12It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things.
1 Peter 1:12
(Angels had thought they served themselves, and express desire- hardly characteristic of tools)

4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
Genesis 6:4
(The Nephilim are a type of angel, along with the Cherubim and Seraphim, and are capable of acting on their own and entering into marriages, and fathering children. This clearly demonstrates a free will.)

Also, the rebellion of Satan is documented in the Old Testament.

12 How you have fallen from heaven,
O morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!
13 You said in your heart,
"I will ascend to heaven;
I will raise my throne
above the stars of God;
I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,
on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. [a]
14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High."
Isaiah 14:12-15

So, the angels may not be able to refuse the will of their Creator, not even Satan, but that doesn't mean they have no free will. Satan is a minion of God only in that God uses him to create greater works, as Eru used the discord of Melkor to create even more beautiful Music.

We must nnot forget that Eru imparted the melody to the Ainur, so even the seemingly creative powers of the Valar are not really theirs, as a priest has no power of their own, and angels have no power of their own. It is all allowed by Eru/God (respectively). Melkor tries to create outside of Eru's design, and he can't. He is reduced to distorting the already present beings, which were in Eru's Music. In the creation of the dwarves, a fully living being cannot be made, and it is Eru who must give life.

I think this means they would not be capable of Tolkien's "sub-creation." Would this be another instance where Tolkien's 'theology' in fact deviates from his Christian beliefs?

In Orthodox theology there is a term 'teogumen' (if I remember it correctly). It seems to me that Host of Angels (as Valar) who may have 'worked' in Creation (even if after it was accomplished), since we do not have direct indication that they did not take any part in 'working' in it, may be a 'teogumen' as well.

Isn't time the unit of eternity?

e·ter·nal
adj.
1. Being without beginning or end; existing outside of time.

And also
Though this may seem trivial, if angels have such powers then what would stop Satan from mascarading as a prophet or messianic figure?

Nothing. ;)

14And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.
2 Corinthians 11:14

HerenIstarion

12-16-2005, 01:23 AM

1. Eru

Letter269

I don't feel under any obligation to make my story fit with formalised Christian theology, though I actually intended it to be consonant with Christian thought and belief

Letter 211

Theologically (if the term is not too grandiose) I imagine the picture to be less dissonant from what some (including myself) believe to be the truth. But since I have deliberately written a tale, which is built on or out of certain "religious" ideas, but is not an allegory of them (or anything else) and does not mention them overtly, still less preach them, I will not now depart from that more, and venture on theological disquisition for which I am not fitted

Letter 153

Inside this mythical history Creation, the act of Will of Eru the One that gives Reality to conceptions, is distinguished from Making, which is permissive

Letter 181

They [Valar] shared in its 'making' - but only on the same terms as we make a work of art or story. The realization of it, the gift to it of a created reality of the same grade as their own, was the act of the One God"

"...they [Valar] are only created spirits - of high angelic order we should say, with their attendant lesser angels - reverended, therefore, but not worshipful..."

Letter 212

The Ainur took part in the making of the world as 'sub-creators': in various degrees, after this fashion. They interpreted according to their powers, and completed in detail, the Design propounded to them by the One."

Letter 153

So in this myth, it is 'feigned' (legitimately whether that is a feature of the real world or not) that He gave special 'sub-creative' powers to certain of His highest created beings: that is a guarantee that what they devised and made should be given the reality of Creation. Of course within limits and of course subject to certain commands or prohibitions".

Letter 181

The Eldar and the Numenoreans believed in The One, the true God, and held worship of any other person an abomination

Atrabeth Finrod Ah Andreth

The Voice said: 'Ye are my children. I have sent you to dwell here. In time you will inherit all this Earth, but first ye must be children and learn. Call on me and I shall hear; for I am watching over you'

Osanwe

No mind can, however, be closed against Eru, either against His inspection or against His message. The latter it may not heed, but it cannot say it did not receive it

Letter 156

"...one of those strange exceptions to all rules and ordinances which seem to crop up in the history of the Universe, and show the Finger of God, as the one wholly free Will and Agent. The story of Beren and Luthien is the one great exception, as it is the way by which 'Elvishness' becomes wound in as a thread in human history

Myths Transformed

It [Hope] cometh not only from the earning for the Will of Iluvatar the Begetter (which by itself may lead those within Time to no more than regret), but also from trust in Eru the Lord everlasting, that he is good, and that his works shall all end in good. This the Marrer hath denied, and in this denial is the root of evil, and its end is in despair

2. Melkor (Evil, Satan)

Myths Transformed

Melkor is the supreme spirit of Pride and Revolt, not just the chief Vala of the Earth, who has turned to evil

Silmarillion

"...(Manwe) was the chief instrument of the second theme that Iluvatar had raised up against the discord of Melkor

(parallel - Micheal as chief opponent of Satan)

Myths Transformed

Morgoth had no 'plan': unless destruction and reduction to nil of a world in which he had only a share, can be called a 'plan'

Myths Transformed

It does however seem best to view Melkor's corrupting power as always starting, at least, in the moral or theological level. Any creature that took him for Lord (and especially those who blasphemously called him Father or Creator) became soon corrupted in all parts of its being, the fea dragging down the hroa in its descent into Morgothism: hate and destruction

3. Evil as instrument of Good in the long run

Silmarillion

And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined

4. Strife of Good vs Evil

Osanwe Kenta

How otherwise would you have it? Should Manwe and the Valar meet secrecy with subterfuge, treachery with falsehood, lies with more lies? If Melkor would usurp their rights, should they deny his? Can hate overcome hate? Nay, Manwe was wiser; or being ever open to Eru he did His will, which is more than wisdom".

5. Humankind

AFaA

The Voice said: 'Ye are my children. I have sent you to dwell here. In time you will inherit all this Earth, but first ye must be children and learn. Call on me and I shall hear; for I am watching over you'".

Silmarillion, Of Aule and Yavanna

That shall also be true of the Children of Iluvatar; for they will eat and they will build. And though the things of thy realm have worth in themselves, and would have worth if no Children were to come, yet Eru will give them dominion, and they shall use all that they find in Arda: though not, by the purpose of Eru, without respect or without gratitude

Silmarillion, QS, Of the Beginning of Days

Behold I love the Earth, which shall be a mansion for the Quendi and the Atani!"

Myths Transformed

For which reason it is said that whereas there is now great evil in Arda and many things therein are at discord... nonetheless the foundations of this world are good, and it turns by nature to good, healing itself from within by the power that was set there in its making; and evil in Arda would fail and pass away if it were not renewed from without: that is: that comes from wills and being [sic] that are other than Arda itself

AFaA

'Matter' is not regarded as evil or opposed to 'Spirit'. Matter was wholly good in origin. It remained a 'creature of Eru' and still largely good, and indeed self-healing, when not interfered with: that is, when the latent evil intruded by Melkor was not deliberately roused and used by evil minds.

6. Freedom of Children of Eru

Silmarillion

For the Children of Iluvatar were conceived by him alone; and they came with the third theme, and were not in the theme which Iluvatar propounded at the beginning, and none of the Ainur had part in their making. Therefore when they beheld them, the more did they love them, being things other than themselves, strange and free, wherein they saw the mind of Iluvatar reflected anew, and learned yet a little more of his wisdom, which otherwise had been hidden even from the Ainur"

7. Death

Letter 153

Since 'mortality' is thus represented as a special gift of God to the Second Race of the Children (the Eruhini, the Children of the One God) and not a punishment for a Fall, you may call that 'bad theology'. So it may be, in the primary world, but it is an imagination capable of elucidating truth, and a legitimate basis of legends".

Yet

Letter 212

In this mythical 'prehistory' immortality, strictly longevity co-extensive with the life of Arda, was pan of the given nature of the Elves; beyond the End nothing was revealed. Mortality, that is a short life-span having no relation to the life of Arda, is spoken of as the given nature of Men: the Elves called it the Gift of Iluvatar (God). But it must be remembered that mythically these tales are Elf-centred, not anthropo-centric, and Men only appear in them, at what must be a point long after their Coming. This is therefore an 'Elvish' view, and does not necessarily have anything to say for or against such beliefs as the Christian that 'death' is not part of human nature, but a punishment for sin (rebellion), a result of the 'Fall'. It should be regarded as an Elvish perception of what death - not being tied to the 'circles of the world' - should now become for Men, however it arose. A divine 'punishment' is also a divine 'gift', if accepted, since its object is ultimate blessing, and the supreme inventiveness of the Creator will make 'punishments' (that is changes of design) produce a good not otherwise to be attained: a 'mortal' Man has probably (an Elf would say) a higher if unrevealed destiny than a longeval one. To attempt by device or 'magic' to recover longevity is thus a supreme folly and wickedness of 'mortals'. Longevity or counterfeit 'immortality' (true immortality is beyond Ea) is the chief bait of Sauron - it leads the small to a Gollum, and the great to a Ringwraith

But still, from human perspective

AFaA

Not so" I say indeed,' answered Andreth. 'We may have been mortal when first we met the Elves far away, or maybe we were not: our lore does not say, or at least none that I have learned. But already we had our lore, and needed none from the Elves: we knew that in our beginning we had been born never to die. And by that, my lord, we meant: born to life everlasting, without any shadow of any end.'

=====================

The selection of quotes I derive from dispute (http://www.kulichki.com/tolkien/arhiv/disput/e-k03.shtml) that ocurred some years back between people who would accuse Tolkien of being gnostic and those who defended Christianity of his writing. More quotes can be dug if need and will and time be, but these suffice for the purposes of comparison.

It seems to me (yet again) that it would be hard to find much deviation between Tolkien and Christian Theology. At the most - Valar, but than again, it is explicitly stated they are not 'creating' per se, but rather 'creating as form of art', 'sub-creating' (Hence 'working' of my previous posts). Besides, there is even a division between Ainur corresponding with division of Angelic Order (http://www.steliart.com/angelology_angelic_orders.html) - why not assume that Auinur that stayed back in Halls of Eru, correspond with first two choirs (Supernals, Celestials, Illuminations, Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones), since they are with God always, Valar correspond with Third Choir - Dominations - Virtues - Powers (mark words) and Maiar with Fourth Choir - Principalities - Archangels - Angels. (It is even easier when comparing with Orthodox teaching, where there are Three Choirs only, First choir being Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones). But I digress. What I was pointing at:

Therefore, I assume, Eru is God, seen through prism of sub-creative work. That Tolkien's 'sub-created' world should not concur with Bible word to word is obvious - would not it than be a parody rather than independent work of Art? But in principle, the one is image of Another.

davem

12-16-2005, 03:02 AM

What I still see is a conflict in Tolkien between 'Imagination' & 'Orthodoxy', & that this 'conflict' is what produces his Art (the conflicting 'forces' of thesis & antithesis producing synthesis, if you like). Without that 'conflict' he would have produced nothing (or nothing worth having). The fact that he could not leave the Legendarium alone, & had constantly to return to it, to 'make it right', to 'find out what really happened' speaks to this inner conflict as plainly as can be.

davem

12-18-2005, 06:54 AM

This is a radio interview with Tolkien (hope the link works) where he discusses some of the religious aspects of LotR.

http://www.daisy.freeserve.co.uk/jrrt_int.htm

Bêthberry

12-18-2005, 07:21 AM

Wonderful link, davem! I suppose for this thread the relevant bits involve his comment on The One, but these were the comments I found the most interesting:

G: It seemed to me that Middle-earth was in a sense as you say this world we live in but at a different era.

T: No ... at a different stage of imagination, yes.

. . .

G: This seems to be one of the great strengths of the book, this enormous conglomeration of names - one doesn't get lost, at least after the second reading.

T: I'm very glad you told me that because I took a great deal of trouble. Also it gives me great pleasure, a good name. I always in writing start with a name. Give me a name and it produces a story, not the other way about normally.

littlemanpoet

12-19-2005, 09:49 PM

Thanks, Heren Istarion, for the light to go with all the heat.

There is a quality of power, a rooted reality, a dynamic of the spirit in LotR that I find nowhere else, not in any other myth, except for the Bible. The two sharing a common root of reality. This demonstrates to me that they are harmonious at the deepest levels.

alatar

12-19-2005, 11:06 PM

So, the angels may not be able to refuse the will of their Creator, not even Satan, but that doesn't mean they have no free will. Satan is a minion of God only in that God uses him to create greater works, as Eru used the discord of Melkor to create even more beautiful Music.

We must nnot forget that Eru imparted the melody to the Ainur, so even the seemingly creative powers of the Valar are not really theirs, as a priest has no power of their own, and angels have no power of their own. It is all allowed by Eru/God (respectively). Melkor tries to create outside of Eru's design, and he can't. He is reduced to distorting the already present beings, which were in Eru's Music. In the creation of the dwarves, a fully living being cannot be made, and it is Eru who must give life.

Nice work collating all of the text. I would read it otherwise. Tolkien's angels, the Ainur, do not breed with men, nor do the 'lesser set,' the Maia. This group was able to breed with elves, though kin, are not men. And even that was a rare event, as were the elf/human and half-elf/half-maia/human marriages. However, it did take place.

I do not see any credible interpretation of any passage of the Christian Bible where angelic beings crossbreed with humans. The Nephilim citation is the most oft presented, but there is much evidence that (http://www.equip.org/free/JAG062.htm) angel/human mixing is an incorrect reading of the passage. (http://www.equip.org/free/DG064.htm)

Noncorporal beings do not breed with corporal beings in either world. Elves, therefore, must be somewhere in between corporal and spirit.

The Ainur and Maia appear to humans seemingly without prior consulting with the One. There are even examples where not all of the Ainur are on the same page (Ulmo talking to Tuor). Angels, however, are on a short leash and do the exact bidding of the Lord. Text that sounds like the angels disagreeing with God etc is just the way the writer anthropomorphizes the event, makes the story more readable and/or attempts to express the point that 'even the Angels did such and such' to demonstrate something of God (His mercy, restraint, etc).

And consider, exactly who documents conversations between angels and the Christian God?

littlemanpoet

12-20-2005, 09:52 AM

I do not see any credible interpretation of any passage of the Christian Bible where angelic beings crossbreed with humans. The Nephilim citation is the most oft presented, but there is much evidence that (http://www.equip.org/free/JAG062.htm) angel/human mixing is an incorrect reading of the passage. (http://www.equip.org/free/DG064.htm)However, Tolkien provided the answer by writing that the Valar who chose to enter Arda clothed themselves in forms befitting the Children of Ilúvatar. I think Tolkien got it right. The term "Nephilim" means 'Children of the Giants'. If you look elsewhere in the historic books of the OT, you discover many references to giants, such as the 'sons of Rafa'; Goliath; and many people living in Palestine (sorry for that anachronism but people understand that term better than Canaan) when the people of Israel spent 40 years tramping through the desert. So the angelic crossbreeding with humans is not so farfetched, and may in fact be closer to the truth (... and may explain to a large extent why Yahweh wanted Israel to kill off the people who lived there; that is, they were set in their ways evildoers who had placed themselves beyond redemption. But anyway....).

I think the angels had, and have, free will. Those who did not fall away earlier have no blinders on and can see the whole picture quite clearly, and know it would be abominably stupid to rebel against God.

The Ainur and Maia appear to humans seemingly without prior consulting with the One. There are even examples where not all of the Ainur are on the same page (Ulmo talking to Tuor). Angels, however, are on a short leash and do the exact bidding of the Lord. Text that sounds like the angels disagreeing with God etc is just the way the writer anthropomorphizes the event, makes the story more readable and/or attempts to express the point that 'even the Angels did such and such' to demonstrate something of God (His mercy, restraint, etc). I find it interesting that Tolkien "cleaned up" some of these less savory (to moderns) aspects of the OT story.

And consider, exactly who documents conversations between angels and the Christian God?Well, God. But now you're getting into the nature of divine revelation. Suffice it to say that God revealed to the prophets what He wanted them to write down.

alatar

12-20-2005, 11:33 AM

However, Tolkien provided the answer by writing that the Valar who chose to enter Arda clothed themselves in forms befitting the Children of Ilúvatar. I think Tolkien got it right. The term "Nephilim" means 'Children of the Giants'. If you look elsewhere in the historic books of the OT, you discover many references to giants, such as the 'sons of Rafa'; Goliath; and many people living in Palestine (sorry for that anachronism but people understand that term better than Canaan) when the people of Israel spent 40 years tramping through the desert. So the angelic crossbreeding with humans is not so farfetched, and may in fact be closer to the truth (... and may explain to a large extent why Yahweh wanted Israel to kill off the people who lived there; that is, they were set in their ways evildoers who had placed themselves beyond redemption. But anyway....).

I will continue to respectfully disagree.

At a time when the average height may have been five feet (1.5 meter), seven feet (2.1), which we see even today, may have seemed to be gigantic. When I meet 'Merican football and basketball players, I feel dwarfed though I am over 2 meters in height. Anyway, I would have to see the bones to believe that actual giants existed. My point is that 'giants' can exist without the intervention of angels.
Exactly how do angels mate with humans? As stated previously, one has physicality whereas the other does not. To tread more lightly, biologically speaking, do angels therefore have DNA? Or is some other mechanism available? Surely God is not limited by anything, by definition, but I would assume that either angels can natively mate with humans or can only do so at the behest of and with the aid of God. Again, if they can whenever they can, what stops the evil set from doing so? Can we detect those people who carry this bloodline? And, hopefully with much respect, why then is the birth of the Christ so special? My assumption is that taking a physical body is a rare event in Christian theology, as is angels mating with humans.
Do we know if angels can 'cloak themselves in flesh?' I remember that there was an angel that wrestles with a human, and so I guess that it is possible, but yet again, why then is the Christ's physical resurrection so different? He asks his disciples to touch him, and He eats fish, all (I assume) to demonstrate evidence that He is not some wispy spirit but a physical object. There are examples where fallen angels inhabit a human, possessing the person as it where, but one of the same examples show the same demons asking permission to take up residence in a pig, which to me means that even the evil sort were not permitted to whatever they chose.

Again, I am no theologian and I do not intend any disrespect.

Anyway, I see no reason nor mechanism by which angels mate with humans. Tolkien explains how it works in ME, as stated, by having elves be the intermediary and, as you have stated, showing that these nonphysical beings take a physical form of their choosing in order to interact with the physical environment and beings therein. But does Tolkien have the equivalent, as you posit for the Christian world, spawn of the evil ones running around at any time? Melkor perverts the elves to beget orcs, yet I don't remember reading where Melkor or any on his side (like Sauron) mate with elves, men, dwarves etc.

Well, God. But now you're getting into the nature of divine revelation. Suffice it to say that God revealed to the prophets what He wanted them to write down.

Understood. My point is that these 'conversations' may not be what they appear, and that God is making some point by showing a 'discussion' is taking place. At times they are utilized as a literary device to have (I assume) a 'question and answer' theme, if that makes sense. And surely an omniscient omnipresent etc God has no 'need' for angels.

Roa_Aoife

12-20-2005, 01:48 PM

At a time when the average height may have been five feet (1.5 meter), seven feet (2.1), which we see even today, may have seemed to be gigantic. When I meet 'Merican football and basketball players, I feel dwarfed though I am over 2 meters in height. Anyway, I would have to see the bones to believe that actual giants existed. My point is that 'giants' can exist without the intervention of angels.

Fair enough, and had we no record of Goliath's height, I'd have to conceed. But we do know it.

1 Samuel 17:4 (New International Version)
4 A champion named Goliath, who was from Gath, came out of the Philistine camp. He was over nine feet* tall.
*Hebrew was six cubits and a span (about 3 meters)

For comparison purposes.

Tallest Man
The tallest man in medical history for whom there is irrefutable evidence is Robert Pershing Wadlow. He was born at Alton, Illinois, USA, on February 22, 1918, and when he was last measured on June 27, 1940, was found to be 2.72 m (8 ft 11.1 in) tall.

For us, a man near 9 ft is an amazing oddity. Goliath was over 9 ft, and he came from a whole tribe of people like that. Something was clearly different.

Do we know if angels can 'cloak themselves in flesh?' I remember that there was an angel that wrestles with a human, and so I guess that it is possible…
Anyway, I see no reason nor mechanism by which angels mate with humans.

Again, this is recorded in scripture.

1 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 "My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning."
"No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square."
3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
Genesis 19:1-5

The angels deviated from their original plan, ate, washed their feet (a Hebrew tradition), and were capable of being raped by the locals. If they could be raped, it stands to reason they could also have sex willingly, and therefore reproduce.

Understood. My point is that these 'conversations' may not be what they appear, and that God is making some point by showing a 'discussion' is taking place. At times they are utilized as a literary device to have (I assume) a 'question and answer' theme, if that makes sense.

While I do not deign to argue divine revalation, I will point out the Tolkien, as a Catholic, would have accepted these passages as wholly true and literal.

And surely an omniscient omnipresent etc God has no 'need' for angels.

Fair enough, but He would have no need for humans either. As to why both were created, I have no idea. Why should Eru bother creating anything at all? Why create the Music? Why should God create humans who would only turn away from Him time and again? That's deep theology, and not a question anyone could really answer here with out getting waaaaaay off topic.

alatar

12-20-2005, 02:12 PM

Fair enough, and had we no record of Goliath's height, I'd have to conceed. But we do know it. For comparison purposes. For us, a man near 9 ft is an amazing oddity. Goliath was over 9 ft, and he came from a whole tribe of people like that. Something was clearly different.

Understood, but as I question a person's ability to reliably judge height (especially at a distance), the lack of a universal standard of measure (unlike the meter, a 'span' could in theory vary), some skepticism as to when Goliath was measured (before he was killed, he was an enemy; when killed by David, there is the possibility that Goliath's height was inflated), and the lack of any evidence of this large race ever existing (though with the finding of 'hobbit' bones, I'm willing to concede that we just haven't uncovered anything yet), I will have to stand by my original argument. Even if we had a race of humans that averaged over 3 meters, this characteristic does not verify spiritual DNA. Occam's razor would suggest that if we were to encounter such a race that we might posit that they are "sons of angels" without evidence if we believed in such things.

It'd be better than just admitting that they are tall and we short. ;)

The angels deviated from their original plan, ate, washed their feet (a Hebrew tradition), and were capable of being raped by the locals. If they could be raped, it stands to reason they could also have sex willingly, and therefore reproduce.

Disagree. The actions of the mob do not impart sexuality to the angels. For example, I may see a movie with an attractive woman. I may say that I would really like to kiss her. This does not give this electronic image flesh and blood lips.

While I do not deign to argue divine revalation, I will point out the Tolkien, as a Catholic, would have accepted these passages as wholly true and literal.

Many people accept their scriptures as "wholly true and literal," yet vary greatly on exactly what that means. Isn't this the reason that religions have many sub-divisions? And some people, even those skilled, do not always interpret a particular passage correctly.

Fair enough, but He would have no need for humans either. As to why both were created, I have no idea. Why should Eru bother creating anything at all? Why create the Music? Why should God create humans who would only turn away from Him time and again? That's deep theology, and not a question anyone could really answer here with out getting waaaaaay off topic.

Agreed. But my point was that in Arda, Manwe is King. He runs the place, with some help. So if we assume that there's a reason for Arda in the first place (unknown to us), then maybe we can say that Manwe and his tribe were created as caretakers so that Eru could get in some golfing ;). In the Christian world, to me it seems that angels aren't exactly needed.