Is Eru God?

[The Saucepan Man]

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?

[Aiwendil]

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]

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.

[Roa_Aoife]

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.

And where's your vote, Fordim?

[alatar]

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 .

[Folwren]

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

[Angry Hill Troll]

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]

Originally Posted by Angry Hill Troll

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.

[mark12_30]

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

Brillinant question from Angry Hill Troll:

Originally Posted by 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.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

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]

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?

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

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Originally Posted by DarkLordSauron

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.

[Firefoot]

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.

[Orominuialwen]

Originally Posted by Firefoot

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.)

Originally Posted by The Only Real Estel

*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.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

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.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Which question are you asking, Fordim?

Barrister.

And I note that you've refused to vote.

Solicitor.