LotR -- Book 6 - Chapter 3 - Mount Doom

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

Well, not having proved that Eru is exactly the same as the loving God portrayed by Christianity, we cannot assume that He was acting out of mercy when He caused Gollum's death - He may have acted out of vengeance & consigned him to 'Hell' - same with the Numenoreans. Or simply caused them to cease to exist.

Um, I thought that we don't know what happens to Men when they die in Middle earth, that Tolkien merely adumbrated an eschatology for his Legendarium. Of course, I haven't read all of HoMe or even all of UT, so I could well be missing something. Did he envison Hell or a hell-like place or even a heaven-like place? Or do we just read the Crack of Doom as a gehenna-like place of fitting "Doom"?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Um, I thought that we don't know what happens to Men when they die in Middle earth, that Tolkien merely adumbrated an eschatology for his Legendarium. Of course, I haven't read all of HoMe or even all of UT, so I could well be missing something. Did he envison Hell or a hell-like place or even a heaven-like place? Or do we just read the Crack of Doom as a gehenna-like place of fitting "Doom"?

We aren't told what happens to Men after death - which is the point I was making. If we confuse Eru with the Christian God we can attribute all kinds of things to Him which may not be valid.

Incidentally, I notice that in terms of number of posts this one is the third most popular, after the Foreword & Prologue. I also noticed that the one we're supposed to be discussing this week - The Field of Cormallen - has had just five responses, as opposed to eighty-two for this one. I wonder what that tells us about us Downers &/or about the nature of story & our response to it. Why is a chapter about death & destruction more interesting to us than one about victory & celebration?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

We aren't told what happens to Men after death - which is the point I was making.

hmm. No, I don't think you did make that point. Your point was rather to uphold a textually-based reading of Eru which does not bring in Primary World comparisons. You didn't say anything about Eru's eschatology or lack thereof.

Originally Posted by davem

To me this is the central issue. If we just take the statements we have about Eru in the text, do we find a loving merciful Creator or something else entirely? His behaviour & actions must be judged on what we know of Eru Himself, not on what we know/believe about the Christian God.

And to a second point:

Originally Posted by davem

I wonder what that tells us about us Downers &/or about the nature of story & our response to it. Why is a chapter about death & destruction more interesting to us than one about victory & celebration?

Speaking for myself, it merely demonstrates the fact that I have not kept up with the current reading--have not yet reread "The Field of Cormellan". I am simply following Estelyn's recommendation that we post on previous threads as our reading allows. No profound meaning of readerly psychology involved at all. Sorry to disappoint!

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

hmm. No, I don't think you did make that point. Your point was rather to uphold a textually-based reading of Eru which does not bring in Primary World comparisons. You didn't say anything about Eru's eschatology or lack thereof.

Originally Posted by me

He may have acted out of vengeance & consigned him to 'Hell' - same with the Numenoreans. Or simply caused them to cease to exist.

I think that's a clear statement that we don't know what happens to (these specific) mortals after death, specifically what Eru might do with them.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

Quote:
Originally Posted by me
He may have acted out of vengeance & consigned him to 'Hell' - same with the Numenoreans. Or simply caused them to cease to exist.


I think that's a clear statement that we don't know what happens to (these specific) mortals after death, specifically what Eru might do with them.

Hmm. Logically, it is a statement which identifies two possible alternatives. It does not say that there are no other alternatives. In other words, it does not state that we don't know for sure.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

Hmm. Logically, it is a statement which identifies two possible alternatives. It does not say that there are no other alternatives. In other words, it does not state that we don't know for sure.

Well, as this is a debate, & as others (specifically H-I) had already suggested that Eru was acting out of compassion & mercy, & so, by implication, had accepted him back into the Divine bosom, I assumed that offering alternatives to that would be sufficient to make the point; clearly that was 'too simple for a learned lore-master in these suspicious days'.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

Well, as this is a debate, & as others (specifically H-I) had already suggested that Eru was acting out of compassion & mercy, & so, by implication, had accepted him back into the Divine bosom, I assumed that offering alternatives to that would be sufficient to make the point; clearly that was 'too simple for a learned lore-master in these suspicious days'.

I see that puts us on the same side of the razor.