Was Eru a Sadist?

[Legolas]

Forgive the long quotes, but this was something Tolkien obviously thought to be very important and made it central to the progression of Man's kingdoms.

However it is interesting that no-one in Middle Earth actually appears to worship Eru, ask him to intercede on their behalf or even to mention him.

It is not so - both Men and Elves worshipped him (and dwarves, possibly).

Númenór is not 'Middle-earth' exactly, but it was no less a part of Arda. The Men of Númenór acknowledged and praised Eru upon the Pillar of Heaven...

The Silmarillion(*)

But in the midst of the land was a mountain tall and steep, and it was named the Meneltarma, the Pillar of Heaven, and upon it was a high place that was hallowed to Eru Ilúvatar, and it was open and unroofed, and no other temple or fane was there in the land of the Númenóreans.

Letter No. 156

The Númenóreans thus began a great new good, and as monotheists; but like the Jews (only more so) with only one physical centre of 'worship': the summit of the mountain Meneltarma 'Pillar of Heaven' – literally, for they did not conceive of the sky as a divine residence – in the centre of Númenor; but it had no building and no temple, as all such things had evil associations.

And the Downfall of Númenór essentially starts in the days of Tar-Ciryatan and his son as the Númenóreans clash with Manwë in wanting to go to Valinor and such. This leads directly to perhaps the most important factor - the divide among the Númenóreans and the cessation of praise for Eru upon the Pillar of Heaven.

But those that lived turned the more eagerly to pleasure and revelry, desiring ever more goods and more riches; and after the days of Tar-Ancalimon the offering of the first fruits to Eru was neglected, and men went seldom any more to the Hallow upon the heights of Meneltarma in the midst of the land.*

The Eldar, too, acknowledged and praised Eru as their sole creator and God.

In The Lord of the Rings the conflict is not basically about 'freedom', though that is naturally involved. It is about God, and His sole right to divine honour. [b]The Eldar and the Númenóreans believed in The One, the true God, and held worship of any other person an abomination[b]. Sauron desired to be a God-King, and was held to be this by his servants; if he had been victorious he would have demanded divine honour from all rational creatures and absolute temporal power over the whole world. (183)

The Elves also had their fall (at least the Noldorin Exiles) in denying Eru praise, for they left it behind in Aman, holding contempt for those who stayed there, along with their practices:

The High Elves were exiles from the Blessed Realm of the Gods (after their own particular Elvish fall) and they had no 'religion' (or religious practices, rather) for those had been in the hands of the gods, praising and adoring Eru 'the One', Ilúvatar the Father of All on the Mt. of Aman. (156)

Dwarves would've praised Eru also, at least in their beginnings:

...for Aulë had done this thing not out of evil desire to have slaves and subjects of his own, but out of impatient love, desiring children to talk to and teach, sharing with them the praise of Ilúvatar and his great love of the materials of which the world is made. (212)

This quote notes the progression of such worship to 'present' in the Middle-earth mindset. This letter goes into a discussion of Númenórean religion, but unfortunately, CT (or the other editor, Humphrey Carpenter) chose to cut the letter off after this statement.

We are in a time when the One God, Eru, is known to exist by the wise, but is not approachable save by or through the Valar, though He is still remembered in (unspoken) prayer by those of Númenórean descent. (297)

A further explanation comes of this progression later on:

Men have 'fallen' – any legends put in the form of supposed ancient history of this actual world of ours must accept that – but the peoples of the West, the good side are Re-formed. That is they are the descendants of Men that tried to repent and fled Westward from the domination of the Prime Dark Lord, and his false worship, and by contrast with the Elves renewed (and enlarged) their knowledge of the truth and the nature of the World. They thus escaped from 'religion' in a pagan sense, into a pure monotheist world, in which all things and beings and powers that might seem worshipful were not to be worshipped, not even the gods (the Valar), being only creatures of the One. And He was immensely remote. (156)

How did they fall? The treasures of the world won their attention, and the (envy of the) immortality/majesty of Valinor and the Elves won their hearts and mind. Even in the Faithful, those that did not push for war on Valinor, Elendil, his sons, and his men failed to reestablish worship of Eru, though they retained other Númenórean values:

the Faithful in Númenor, who had refused to take pan in the rebellion, [...] established a kind of diminished memory of Númenor in Exile on the coasts of Middle-earth – inheriting the hatred of Sauron, the friendship of the Elves, the knowledge of the True God, and (less happily) the yearning for longevity, and the habit of embalming and the building of splendid tombs – their only 'hallows': or almost so. But the 'hallow' of God and the Mountain had perished, and there was no real substitute. Also when the 'Kings' came to an end there was no equivalent to a 'priesthood': the two being identical in Númenórean ideas. So while God (Eru) was a datum of good Númenórean philosophy, and a prime fact in their conception of history. He had at the time of the War of the Ring no worship and no hallowed place. And that kind of negative truth was characteristic of the West, and all the area under Numenorean influence: the refusal to worship any 'creature', and above all no 'dark lord' or satanic demon, Sauron, or any other, was almost as far as they got. They had (I imagine) no petitionary prayers to God; but preserved the vestige of thanksgiving. [...] It later appears that there had been a 'hallow' on Mindolluin, only approachable by the King, where he had anciently offered thanks and praise on behalf of his people; but it had been forgotten. ... (156, continued below)

As Tolkien said often, the mixing of Man and Elf (in Dior and Earendil) served as part of the idea in Men eventually taking the Elves' place as rulers of the land ("The entering into Men of the Elven-strain is indeed represented as part of a Divine Plan for the ennoblement of the Human Race, from the beginning destined to replace the Elves") - this meant in terms of love for God too, which many could easily overlook. Aragorn would be the one to turn Gondor in the right direction again (as the Númenórean influence was excavated):

... It was re-entered by Aragorn, and there he found a sapling of the White Tree, and replanted it in the Court of the Fountain. It is to be presumed that with the reemergence of the lineal priest kings (of whom Lúthien the Blessed Elf-maiden was a foremother) the worship of God would be renewed, and His Name (or title) be again more often heard. But there would be no temple of the True God while Númenórean influence lasted. (156)

So why do we hear calls of Elbereth and petitions to the Valar (from Frodo, Gildor's party's song, Legolas, Sam, Damrod, etc.) instead of Eru? A note in paranethesis from the previously quoted letter explains...

Those under special Elvish influence might call on the angelic powers for help in immediate peril or fear of evil enemies. (footnote: The Elves often called on Varda-Elbereth, the Queen of the Blessed Realm, their especial friend, and so does Frodo.) (156)

The Elves still acknowledged the majesty and authority of the Valar; further, they recognized (were aware) that the Valar were in more of a position to help them - physically present in Arda - while the One is remote, subtle, and does not directly intervene often. It's just as one might call out to a guardian angel.

Olorin_TLA said

Basically, if a mortal were to act like Eru, we'd hope Saruon ate them.

This is not exactly the case; rather, it is presented in a misleading manner. If one were to act like Eru in terms of thinking they could create, dominate, etc., we would wish them to stop, but this is simply because a mortal *cannot* be Eru, nor if the mortal even had said power, could they exercise it in the gracious manner that Eru does. This is precisely why Morgoth and Sauron are hated, cause so much suffering, and ultimately fail.

Bethberry said

an angel, sent to block or obstruct human activity in such a way as to teach people something about their own weaknesses and foibles.

In 'sent to...', do you mean to imply that Satan was sent intentionally by God to do so?

As for the chessboard analogy, I do not think it works. If Middle-earth was a chessboard, there would be a number of different parties, but if you still reduced it to two sides - good and evil - each piece would be able to move itself. In that point of view, Eru is just as he is presented in the text - the Creator. He would've made the board and each piece, and place the restrictions on their movements (the parallel being the limitations of power); He would not be the one moving the pieces. Each piece has a will of its own.

[The Saucepan Man]

Anyone wants to place a bet how many pages this thread can carry on? Mine gamble would be somewhat around 11 (when folks on canonicity thread get wind (as I see you already started to) of what's going on.

Oh Eru, nooooooooooooooo!

It seems to me that, in responding to this question, we have three broad options:

• We can interpret Eru as God in our own world, which (as Lalaith notes in post # 15) raises age old questions to which there is and can be no definitive answer, such as why God allows suffering in the world.
  
  
• We can try to look at in it Tolkien’s terms and answer on the basis of our understanding of his concept of God (as davem suggested in post #8).
  
  
• Or we can discuss how we react as readers to Eru based on what we know about Him in the text (the key aspects of which are outlined by Estelyn in post #9).

Personally, I prefer the last option as Eru is a fictional character and should, to my mind, be discussed as such (although our reactions as readers will, I suppose, be influenced to a degree by our own personal beliefs). On basis of the quotes given by Estelyn and Legolas and the definition which Estelyn and Bêthberry give of “sadism”, I would conclude that Eru is most definately not a sadist. But, in giving His Children free will, He has to accept (as indeed he does) the consequences, ie that they have the potential to rebel and give rise to evil, the inevitable consequence of which is suffering on the part of individuals. To have it any other way would be to deny them free will, and what would be the point of that?

The question remains, however, why certain individuals are “selected” for suffering. Gandalf says, for example, that Bilbo was “meant” to find the Ring. The almost inevitable consequence of this is that he or (more likely) Frodo will be charged with the task of destroying it, if it is to be destroyed. This issue was, as davem indicates, explored in great depth in the Nebulous "It" and Absolutes thread. My own view is that, while Eru refrains from simply just stepping in whenever He wants (which would deny His Children their free will), He allows himself to do so when evil would otherwise prevail (or, to use H-I’s analogy, when the mess in the bedroom serves to undermine the structural order of the house ). But He never does so directly, but rather through His Children (such as Frodo), who still have a choice whether to go through with what He requires of them. Frodo could have turned back at any point, although that in itself raises an interesting question of what Eru would then have done to prevent Sauron’s total victory. Why Frodo? I think that it was because he was best suited to the task at hand. If he couldn’t have done it, then no one could have.

One further question arises in my mind, however. Are there such things as “natural” disasters in Arda (volcanoes, earthquakes and the like) or are all such phenomena the consequence of evil (in which case they will ultimately be the consequence of free will)? Such things cause suffering too, but if they are not the consequence of evil, then why does Eru allow them to exist within Arda? Did He give “nature” free will too?

[Bêthberry]

Ulmo asked me the following:

Bethberry said
Quote:
an angel, sent to block or obstruct human activity in such a way as to teach people something about their own weaknesses and foibles.

In 'sent to...', do you mean to imply that Satan was sent intentionally by God to do so?

That is how Elaine Pagels describes the meaning of the word in the Hebrew Bible. Because this is a concept quite different from the usual one where Satan is a malevolent character who embodies transcendent forces, perhaps I should provide a full quotation from her book, The Origin of Satan:

In the Hebrew Bible, as in mainstream Judaism to this day, Satan never appears as Western Christendom has come to know him, as the leader of an 'evil empire', an army of hostile spirits who make war on God and humankind alike. As he first appears in the Hebrew Bible, Satan is not necessarily evil, much less opposed to God. On the contrary, he appears in the book of Numbers and in Job as one of God's obedient servants--a messenger or angel, a word that translates the Hebrew term for messenger (mal' ak) into Greek ( angelos). In Hebrew, the angels were often called "sons of God" (ben e' elohim), and were envisioned as the hierarchical ranks of a great army, or the staff of a royal court.

In biblical sources the Hebrew term satan describes an adversarial role. It is not the name of a particular character. Although Hebrew storytellers as early as the sixth century B.C.E. occasionally introduced a supernatural character whom they called the satan, what they meant was any one of the angels sent by God for the specific purpose of blocking or obstructing human activity. The root stn means "ones who opposes, obstructs, or acts as adversary." (The Greek term diabolos, later translated "devil," literally means, "one who throws something across ones path.")

Thesatan's presence in a story could help account for unexpected obstacles or reversals of fortune. Hebrew storytellers often attribute misfortunes to human sin. Some, however, also invoke this supernatural character, the satan, who, by God's own order or permission, blocks or opposes human plans and desires. But this messenger is not necessarily malevolent. God sends him, like the angle of Death, to perform a specific task, although one that human beings may not appreciate; as the literary scholar Neil Forsyth says of the satan, "If the path is bad, an obstruction is good." Thus the satan may simply have been sent by the Lord to protect a person from worse harm. The story of Balaam in the biblical book of Numbers, for example, tells of a man who decided to go where God had ordered him not to go. Balaam saddles his a** and set off, "but God's anger was kindled because he went; and the angle of the Lord took his stand in the road as his satan le-satan-lo that is, as his adversary, or is obstructor . . . . The book of Job, too, describes the satan as a supernatural messenger, a member of God's royal court. But while Balaam's satan protects him from harm, Job's satan takes a more adversarial role. Here the Lord himself admits that the satan incited him to act against Job.

Pagels examines other accounts , such as the one where the satan "is invoked to account for divisions within Israel. " In one such example, the satan takes a role in census-taking during King David's reign. In other accounts, the satan speaks for "a disaffected--and unsuccessful--party against another party." Ultimately, she argues, the satan came to be invoked by dissidents characterising their Jewish opponents and this led, she claims, into the depiction of Satan in the early Christian communities as God's rival and antagonist. Her book is a social history of how the concept of the satan changed over time until it came to be used so thoroughly to characterise the enemies of Christendom.

Sorry this post is so long and actually off topic but I did want to give Ulmo a complete reply. I have not been able to transcrible all the diacritical marks which Pagels uses for her Hebrew terms, nor identify the footnotes she makes.

[Guinevere]

Davem wrote

It is nothing less than an attempt to justify God's creation of an imperfect world filled with suffering, grief & loss

I suppose that Tolkien is saying we can't judge the world from within it, that only an 'eternal' perspective can make sense of the world. For those who believe this world is all there is, then it will seem that evil, pain & suffering is the norm, & if there is a creator, & we judge Him only by events in this world, He will probably seem cruel & possibly sadistic, but if we make our judgement based on a transcendent view, then our judgement will inevitably be different.

I agree very much!! I've always felt something like this, but am not able to find the words to express such things....

In the Ainulindale , Eru says

"...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."

And after the flight of the Noldor it is told

... Manwë wept and bowed his head. But at the last word of Fëanor : that at the least the Noldor should do deeds to live in song for ever, he raised his head, as one that hears a voice far off, and he said: "So shall it be! Dear-bought these songs shall be accounted, and yet shall be well-bought. For the price could be no other. Thus even as Eru spoke to us shall beauty not before conceived be brought into Ea, and evil yet be good to have been." But Mandos said: "And yet remain evil. To me Fëanor shall come soon."

In the LotR, Haldir expresses a similar feeling:

"The world is indeed full of peril, and in it there are many dark places; but still there is much that is fair, and though in all lands love is now mingled with grief, it grows perhaps the greater."

It is somehow an attempt to explain the presence of evil and suffering...that they are even somehow necessary.

When reading LotR, I get a comforting feeling, that there is a merciful providence behind it all that will somehow turn things out for the best. There is a balance of sadness and joy. Good is usually rewarded and evil punished.

But when reading the Silmarillion which is much more tragic and sad, I often felt a bit like Bombadil who started this thread. Well, I didn't exactly assume that Eru was a sadist, but I kept asking myself constantly "why?" Why all this suffering and this injustice? (Well, actually, when looking around in the world or at history, I feel just the same!) Especially Húrin and Túrin's fate moved me (and reminded me somehow of Job, too!) and I wondered what made Tolkien write it this way, so differently from LotR ?

Eventually (after much pndering and reading Tolkien's letters) I've come to think just about that which Davem wrote and I quoted above.

Hope this made sense, I'm not good at expressing myself.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

A brief answer to one question you ask, davem:

...Eru's motives - why create anything at all - boredom?

As I quoted the 'Ainulindalë' in my above post, we can see Eru's desire for fellowship as one reason for creating - that resulted in the Ainur and their cooperation in creating with him. The other desire that motivated creation was the desire for beauty - a reason that also motivates many of us who create works of art, whether great or small.


Another brief comment on one of your early posts:

...those accounts weren't written, or even dictated by Eru Himself, so we're only getting opinions here

I really doesn't matter who wrote or dictated the accounts; the evidence of a person's personality traits shows in his/her actions. From Eru's deeds we can deduce some facts about him, though admittedly not all. This corresponds with the Biblical statement that God can be recognized in his creation.

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made. (Romans 1, 20)

This way of characterization reminds me of the discussions we've had on Tolkien's way of writing, giving his characters 'psychological depth' by showing what they do, not necessarily what they think.

[Bêthberry]

davem, you always write eloquently and movingly about your own experience of transcendence and this gives your posts great power. I would, though, like to ask you to consider something.

For those who believe this world is all there is, then it will seem that evil, pain & suffering is the norm,

I know that, for you, only the experience of transcendence gives hope beyond the travails of this world. This is a fundamental reality for you. And this is true for many others as well. However, how can you generalise this to everyone? Does it always follow for all people who believe "this world is all there is" that they will necessarily believe "evil, pain & suffering is the norm"? I am not questioning your own experience but I wonder if it can be generalised to everyone. I know people for whom this does not follow and I would not like to see their experience disavowed. Can you really speak for them?

[davem]

Bethberry Wow!

I was looking at the world through 'Tolkien-coloured' glasses there (though I admit leaning towards that view myself).

As Garth said re Ainulindale:'It is nothing less than an attempt to justify God's creation of an imperfect world filled with suffering, grief & loss.'

This is an imperfect world, & it is filled with suffering, grief & loss - & that's simply the fact for most of humanity, & always has been. But then, if you're a believer, how do you account for God not putting it all right? You require an explanation - at least one that will work for you.

When you say : I know people for whom this does not follow and I would not like to see their experience disavowed. Can you really speak for them?:

I think that's another issue - aren't you talking there about their individual experience of life - their lives, mine, yours, may be happy, untroubled & comfortable, but Tolkien is not attempting to deal with individual happy lives, but with the experience of humanity on this planet through history. Not the relationship of you or I with God, but Humanity's relationship with God down through the ages. My life may be perfectly happy, I may go through from cradle to grave with not a single unpleasant experience, but that does not 'explain away' the inquisition, the Somme, the Holocaust, Hiroshima, 9/11. Or the famines, earthquakes, tidal waves. Or cancer, AIDS, babies born addicted to crack. All of it.

Tolkien is attempting to account for the suffering of humanity, not of individual humans. That's what mythology attempts - to explain our relationship with deity, & why the universe is the way it is.

Of course, there has always been good as well as evil in life - but its the evil we have the problem with, that we feel the need to account for - maybe we have some deep sense that the good doesn't need explaining, because that's how it should be.

[symestreem]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

One further question arises in my mind, however. Are there such things as “natural” disasters in Arda (volcanoes, earthquakes and the like) or are all such phenomena the consequence of evil (in which case they will ultimately be the consequence of free will)? Such things cause suffering too, but if they are not the consequence of evil, then why does Eru allow them to exist within Arda? Did He give “nature” free will too?

Such things cause suffering, but they can also cause good. I question the effect that the inhabitants of Middle-earth could have had on nature, except for their actions causing the Valar to intervene with the weather (see Windy and Cold and The Symbolic Significance of Weather). But if the chaos theory works in Middle-earth, then something as simple as the flight of an arrow can trigger a hurricane. If the arrow was being fired for 'good purposes', would the Valar intervene and stop the hurricane? What if the archer knew what would happen and fired it anyway, because the need for the arrow was greater than the possible suffering of the hurricane? He'd be justified, but would he be responsible for the loss of life in the hurricane? I suppose it's a good thing we can't see along the future branches and see the consequences of our actions, because then we'd all be too scared to move!
Would the Valar, allow something as massive as the weather to be controlled by chance, or would they control it themselves? If they control it themselves, as they seem to do at least part of the time, then we can assume that many weather occurrences actually are for the better. Are there any instances of this in the books?