Was Eru a Sadist?

[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.

[Lhunardawen]

I've just watched the movie "Troy" based on Homer's The Iliad, and Greek mythology entered my mind. The Greek gods and godesses are probably the perfect examples of sadistic deities. They just stand by and look down, watching people kill themselves, or sometimes joining in the fun (the way Hera, Helena, and Aphrodite indirectly caused the Trojan War as they fought over the golden apple in Paris' hands). Eru is absolutely not like that.

[Bombadil]

For those not familiar with what Lhunardawen is talking about, actually reading the Iliad is your best bet. The movie seldom talks about the Gods which are so prevalent in the poem.

But yes, great point. In that particular mythology the Gods are (with do doubt in my mind) if not sadistic, very wrathful.

Perhaps it would be safer to continue this thread by comparing (and contrasting) the Gods of other Mythology, such as Greek, to Iluvatar. Maybe finding certain qualities of Eru that wouldn't classify him as a sadist, but rather ones that remain mere qualities.