Fantasy Morality

[Nerwen]

Again, my point, respectively, is to say that Tolkien is being entirely consistent in his Legendarium in addition to the COH, specifically, the story of Turin Turambar. It is certainly not "atheistic" when I point out the fact of meteroic objects made into temples or swords were actually mediums of contact with the gods. It negates the whole theory of Turin being isolated in his morality from Eru. Read again, and you may see the connection.

My point is that you could easily have said this much more clearly in far fewer words, my friend– perhaps more as you did just now. (Besides, the fact that meteorites have often been considered sacred is not exactly news.) I must admit that I am also still confused about what exactly you're trying to say here– that Turin thought the sword spoke to him with the voice of Eru? Really?

In general, I cannot help feeling that your own "presuppositions" (perhaps about the ignorance and bias of everyone else?) have led you to misinterpret or disregard much of what has already been said.

[Nerwen]

I'm sorry if I sound overly-irritatated there, it's just that it is almost impossible to discern whatever points you are trying to make when they're so obscured by a fog of semi-random information. Whether you intend this or not, it really does end up looking like deliberate obfustication.

Okay?

[Dakêsîntrah]

Nerwen,

I concur. I certainly could have said this in fewer words. But unfortunately, many other people require more evidence. I am quite happy to expound upon long lines of text.

Meteorites being sacred is not new, but that's not the point. It is the metaphysical principles that come from such rare phenomena (cosmic catastrophe) that encompasses Morality (that which exists by function/relation).

Respectively, if you would have noticed this occult theme of Tolkien, Turin's sword shall have seemed to drive a chasm between human subjective law by action and divine accommodated law.

Furthermore, who's to say Eru actually speaks anthromorphically? I contend he doesn't. In all other ancient Creation myths, there are narratives where a Creation god "speaks" as if the man was already present as a created (structural/origin theory) being. This is anachronistic if you fall into the mindset of anthropomorphism. Eru "speaks" as he is defined, yet unchanged by the successive cycle of Ages. They are not mere words (Tolkien's parallelism is undeniable). Eru enables his foremost Beings to sing "themes." This is not an anthropomorphic choir. This is a visual look into the Ages of Good (limitation) and the Ages of Evil (Chaos). Ages of Good are met with the growth of boundaries (Elves), while balanced by the destruction of Chaos (Melkor). Both are necessary for the balance of nature and the eventual subsumation of Eru, the One. As Eru says, anything Morgoth does he providentially aides Eru in keeping the balance.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

Meteorites being sacred is not new, but that's not the point. It is the metaphysical principles that come from such rare phenomena (cosmic catastrophe) that encompasses Morality (that which exists by function/relation).

Respectively, if you would have noticed this occult theme of Tolkien, Turin's sword shall have seemed to drive a chasm between human subjective law by action and divine accommodated law.

The anthropomorphic blade has nothing to do with Eru. The sword speaks for two reasons:

1) It is a direct lift from the Kalevala, in which the anti-hero, Kullervo, having had an incestuous liasion with his sister (unknowingly of course, just as in CoH) commits suicide. But first he asks his magic blade (given to him by the Finnish thunder god Ukko) to do the deed for him:

Kullerwoinen, wicked wizard,
Grasps the handle of his broadsword,
Asks the blade this simple question:
"Tell me, O my blade of honor,
Dost thou wish to drink my life-blood,
Drink the blood of Kullerwoinen?"

Thus his trusty sword makes answer,
Well divining his intentions:
"Why should I not drink thy life-blood,
Blood of guilty Kullerwoinen,
Since I feast upon the worthy,
Drink the life-blood of the righteous?"

and 2) Unlike Kullervo's divinely wrought blade, Anglachel (Gurthang) was smithied by Eol the Dark Elf, who created a masterwork that was imbued with the artist's aura. Not unlike Feanor's Silmarils or Sauron's Ring, Anglachel had the semblance of life, an echo of the artisan who crafted it. Melian saw this at once when she noted to Beleg:

"There is malice in this sword. The dark heart of the smith still dwells in it. It will not love the hand it serves, neither will it abide with you long."

So, Tolkien borrowed the idea from the Kalevala, but removed the divine reference from the sword; although it is forged from meteoric metal, I see no direct inference that Tolkien wished to imply divinity in the blade. The blade was indeed magic, but unlike Kullervo's blade (bestowed by the god Ukko), it was wrought by Eol, who in Elvish subcreative fashion creates a weapon instilled with his own malevolence, pride and ill-will. That the sword could ascertain injustice might just as well be because Eol himself always felt ill-used or wronged.