The atrocity of the Akallabêth

[Břicho]

Then why would Eru punish them at all? Why should he protect the rest of the world from Numenor? Why would he care if men picked a fight with the Valar?

[Lalwendë]

Tar-Telperien explains it well earlier. But basically the Numenoreans were granted a special gift by Eru, who does not interfere much at all, with the condition that they did not seek to go to Valinor. But they did, and Eru had to reshape the world so that no Men could ever attempt it again. This was for their own good as Elves and Men were in essence very different creatures. Eru did not do it to protect the ordinary Men of Middle-earth.

[Macalaure]

There's an argument which I read several time so far, that death was maybe a good thing for the children of Númenor. I don't agree with this. Throughout Tolkien's work killing another person (undeservedly) is an evil act. Even though death is the Gift of Eru to Men, I think this moral standard should also hold for him, regardless of the quality of the afterlife and regardless of whether life for the children would inevitably become very bad.

If indeed Eru is beyond good and evil, then obviously it doesn't hold for him. But I doubt this. Like Břicho said, if Eru has no preference for good or evil and just is, then why does he care at all. He created both good and evil beings, but he clearly seems to prefer the good side. So no matter if he was entirely good or also somewhat evil, the standards of good and evil should apply to himself as well.

The contradiction remains. Innocent children (though parents are responsible for their children, children are not responsible for their parents - and I don't buy the argument that they were too strongly influenced by their evil parents in the short span of their upbringing (we're talking about young children)) died in the Drowning, no matter whether it was a punishment or 'collateral damage'. This happened at the hands of Eru, who in turn, by the standards Tolkien's work gives, cannot be entirely good.

But maybe, at the time, the Drowning was simply the best choice that was left to Eru? This is possible. In fact, it would perhaps solve our dilemma. However, I think it leads to another question: Is Eru omnipotent or not? If he is, then he must have had the possibility to punish the evil and/or remove Valinor while sparing the innocent Númenoreans (I confess I'm growing increasingly uncomfortable with this black-and-white painting of the society of Westernesse). Is there any textual support for either one of the positions?

[Lalwendë]

Legate - bear in mind though that Eru created Melkor. When Eru tells him "no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me" he is telling Melkor that he may have free will, but he was put there by Eru and Eru made him what he is, whether for good or for bad.

I suppose in one way you might almost feel sorry for Melkor as he simply cannot help what he is.

The Ainur sing of the world and Melkor's discordancies create those things which would go on to be evil things - and no theme can be played which does not stem from Eru, therefore this logically tells us that Eru caused this to be (unwittingly or not, whichever you prefer, I prefer wittingly).

thou, Melkor, wilt discover all the secret thoughts of thy mind, and wilt perceive that they are but a part of the whole and tributary to its glory

I'll use this again, as it's about the very design which Eru came up with. Eru tells Melkor that he will soon enough find out what his darkest thoughts are, and that at some point, he will also see that such dark thoughts are a very part of the whole of existence and a part of the glory of existence.

This concept in fact ties in with poetry written by Tolkien's friend Smith, about the death of their friend Gilson in which he says that God cannot be glorified unless there is suffering.

Originally Posted by John Garth

One piece declares a stark view of divine providence: Gilson's death is "a sacrifice of blood outpoured" to a God whose purposes are utterly inscrutable and who "only canst be glorified by man's own passion and the supreme pain"

It's a very bloody and unforgiving concept of God, but nevertheless it is one that Tolkien seems to have held. In the situation that Tolkien was in on the Somme you either become an Atheist or you come to a view that God is quite a dark figure, a figure who at the very least will permit, if not commit, atrocities.

EDIT
Ultimately, there are two ways of looking at this:
1. We assume Eru is good - therefore everything he does is good too, it must be good because he does it. But this also means he can do anything and it is still good.
2. We look at what happens and work out if it was good or bad. If it was bad, then Eru has done something bad, and he is neither wholly good nor bad.

This all depends of course on whether sets of abstracts like good and evil control Eru's actions. They must do for 2 to be true so is he still omnipotent? But if we then go back to saying that 1 must be true, then there is no good or evil anyway as there is no moral standard apart from what we decide. Which brings us back to 2 again....and on and on and on.... Can Eru create a rock that's so heavy he cannot move it?

[Tar-Telperien]

Originally Posted by Macalaure

However, I think it leads to another question: Is Eru omnipotent or not?

So far as I know, he is nowhere stated to be, and this is a very good thing. It's the only thing that lets his character (that of a deity) make any sense. To me, certain religions in the Primary World make a major error in trying to declare their deity is omnipotent.

Because if Eru is not omnipotent, it may be that there are certain consequences of his creatures attempting to rebel against him that he cannot change qua being their creator (in other words, the idea would be that in the "Tale of Adanel", the story of the Fall of Man in Middle-earth, Eru did not "punish" Men, but merely described what would inevitably happen to them because of their attempt to rebel. He could not stop the changes that would occur in them (shortened life, weakness, etc.), because he is not omnipotent. Eru is called Sanavaldo, the Almighty, but being Almighty is different than being omnipotent.)

[Tar-Telperien]

Originally Posted by Macalaure

Throughout Tolkien's work killing another person (undeservedly) is an evil act.

Are you sure that that's not just humans' opinions? From the Athrabeth, it is made plain that Men, even the Edain, had fallen into a belief that Death was an "abominable" punishment brought on for evil deeds Men committed in their early history. There was almost no way they could find the strength of mind to look at it neutrally. It always carried an aura of punishment or "Doom" for them. So naturally this worked into their justice systems, which are human constructions.

Remember, Eru does not give anyone a moral or justice system to follow, nor does he announce any rules he has for his own conduct. All such systems are devices of his creatures, for dealing with life in Arda and in their societies. This hardly means they are "worthless"; they are extremely important in their context. But demanding that Eru be subject to one of these devised justice systems is taking it completely out of context.

The only promise, warning, or Doom Eru ever pronounces is that anyone who tries to rebel against him will not succeed, and that ultimately, rebellion itself is an illusion, since Eru's Will (Indómë, as I prefer to call it) is still being done through them. The evil of this "rebellion" is not that it works against Eru, but that it constitutes lying to oneself about successfully working against his Will.

(As an aside, these idea strongly hint to me that this mythology is not about a dualistic war of Good against Evil, with Good being the winner... someday. It's about learning. It's about moving from a state of ignorance to a state of enlightenment. It's about tearing down those comfortable illusions and self-deceptions and accepting the hard facts of Indómë. In the "Tale of Adanel", Eru tells Men that "eah of you in a little while shall come to me, to learn who is your Lord: the one ye worship, or I who made him" (my emphasis). People tend to forget that when the Children are deceived by Melkor, and when Melkor deceives himself, it is because they want that. Lies are so much easier to deal with than truth.)

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Tar-Telperien

Remember, Eru does not give anyone a moral or justice system to follow, nor does he announce any rules he has for his own conduct. All such systems are devices of his creatures, for dealing with life in Arda and in their societies. This hardly means they are "worthless"; they are extremely important in their context. But demanding that Eru be subject to one of these devised justice systems is taking it completely out of context.

To understand this you (not you, but the reader in general of course) need to clearly separate out your own personal idea of God from what you read about Eru as the two are not compatible unless you happen to personally share Tolkien's view of Eru in your own conception of God. Of course God gave rules to people (if we take the notion that the Bible is the Word of God), but Eru does not. This is why it's important to take your own belief and put it into a little mental box while you consider how Eru works. I know I've had to, in order to understand Tolkien's literary creation. And while I personally find what Eru did to be bad within the bounds of my own morality, in the context of the world Tolkien writes about, it works.

[Tar-Telperien]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

To understand this you (not you, but the reader in general of course) need to clearly separate out your own personal idea of God from what you read about Eru as the two are not compatible unless you happen to personally share Tolkien's view of Eru in your own conception of God. Of course God gave rules to people (if we take the notion that the Bible is the Word of God), but Eru does not. This is why it's important to take your own belief and put it into a little mental box while you consider how Eru works. I know I've had to, in order to understand Tolkien's literary creation. And while I personally find what Eru did to be bad within the bounds of my own morality, in the context of the world Tolkien writes about, it works.

Exactly. This is to me why Eru is one of the most interesting conceptions in Tolkien's entire mythos. He seems like a humdrum monotheistic God on first inspection, but gradually you realize he is completely different.

I am not so sure that what Eru did with Númenor is bad, when one looks at the alternatives. Would leaving "innocent women and children" alone with Sauron have been any better of a solution!?

Originally Posted by Macalaure

TIf indeed Eru is beyond good and evil, then obviously it doesn't hold for him. But I doubt this. Like Břicho said, if Eru has no preference for good or evil and just is, then why does he care at all.

He cares because he made everything.

Originally Posted by Macalaure

He created both good and evil beings, but he clearly seems to prefer the good side. So no matter if he was entirely good or also somewhat evil, the standards of good and evil should apply to himself as well.

I'm not so sure that's a conclusion we can make at all. He gave Melkor the most attention after Melkor's discord. Eru sternly but kindly warned Melkor before he did anything else discordant that he would be unsuccessful in any attempt to rebel against him, but did not punish him, reprimand him, or take away his freedom. He let him act just as he let the other Valar do. Eru did not command Melkor not to lord himself over the Children or mar Arda, no more than he warned Manwë.

The reason why it's tempting to say Eru "prefers" one side is because of the behavior of the creatures themselves. Naturally, if you are concerned about keeping close to what you believe Eru's design to be, you will converse with him more and try to determine that will for you. If you don't care what Eru might want, you're not going to do that. Melkor didn't for precisely that reason. He tried to forget Eru's existence because of the misfortune it had for his plans (namely, that he could not be the supreme power in Eä).

[Macalaure]

Originally Posted by Tar-Telperien

Are you sure that that's not just humans' opinions? From the Athrabeth, it is made plain that Men, even the Edain, had fallen into a belief that Death was an "abominable" punishment brought on for evil deeds Men committed in their early history. There was almost no way they could find the strength of mind to look at it neutrally. It always carried an aura of punishment or "Doom" for them. So naturally this worked into their justice systems, which are human constructions.

Ah, I see I didn't make clear what I meant. Death itself is not evil, of course not. It's simply the fate of Men. Killing, however, is evil, unless the killed one is evil, because it violently severs hroa and fea, and this is not meant to be. There isn't even a difference between Elf, Man, Dwarf or whatever in this sense, I think.

Let's put it differently. Evil is defined as rebellion against Eru's will. Eru's will was so far that Men, or Incarnate Beings in general, shall not kill each other (again, only if innocent). Now Eru does kill innocent people. Does this now mean that Eru's will is inconsistent? Can Eru rebel against himself?
Just trying to understand this.

I am not so sure that what Eru did with Númenor is bad, when one looks at the alternatives. Would leaving "innocent women and children" alone with Sauron have been any better of a solution!?

I think Eru's goal in destroying Númenor was to eliminate the evil/rebellion that spread from it. If we agree that he wasn't omnipotent (bear with me, but why isn't almighty=omnipotent?), then it's quite possible that he wasn't able to sort out the innocent and the guilty ones in the process. Leaving anybody to Sauron isn't even a real alternative, I'd say.

[Tar-Telperien]

Originally Posted by Macalaure

Evil is defined as rebellion against Eru's will.

I define "evil" as the self-deception, and the effects that rise from it, of believing that such rebellion is even possible.

As for killing, it's wrong because it breaks the moral rule of: "what people can't re-create they shouldn't destroy without consent, because someone else might want it there" (the someone being that person's loved ones, etc.). The consent would be, of course, capital punishment, etc. But Eru is in the position of being able to create Incarnates, and so does not fall under this (again humanly-constructed) rule.

Also, killing falls under the Golden Rule of course. But since our "selves" are fundamentally different from Eru's "self", quite probably this social rule doesn't apply either. Also, if Eru didn't want "violent separation of hröa and fëa to take place, obviously he would never have bothered to place Incarnates into Arda Marred! Obviously, then, this is a poor assumption. I would rather think that such separation is indeed part of Indómë. Either that or abandon estel altogether and not bother believing in Eru.

Originally Posted by Macalaure

I think Eru's goal in destroying Númenor was to eliminate the evil/rebellion that spread from it. If we agree that he wasn't omnipotent (bear with me, but why isn't almighty=omnipotent?), then it's quite possible that he wasn't able to sort out the innocent and the guilty ones in the process. Leaving anybody to Sauron isn't even a real alternative, I'd say.

My theory of the Downfall, which I have written and alluded to a few times above, is still that Númenor's destruction was a secondary aspect of the Breaking of the World, and hardly the main reason for that Breaking. When we consider Eru in that context, we can either assume that Eru chose (if he is not a moral figure) to ignore that the island was there when he broke the world, since its inhabitants had chosen to ignore him. If he is a moral figure, the island was allowed to be caught in the destruction both because of the people's deeds, but also to deliver them (and their children!) from Sauron.

(Keep in mind that this is a very complex and many-sided issue, and I haven't thought about every aspect of it. There may well be holes in my argument/presentation.)

As to almightiness vs. omnipotence:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia, from the "omnipotence paradox" article

Y is almighty means that Y is not just more powerful than any creature; no creature can compete with Y in power, even unsuccessfully. In this account nothing like the omnipotence paradox arises, but perhaps that is because God is not taken to be in any sense omnipotent.

And that sounds exactly like Eru as he is presented in Tolkien's works: not stated to be omnipotent, but any attempt to rebel against him will in the end be unsuccessful.

Lastly, aside from the initial "miracle" of making a big crack in Arda, everything happened in accord with natural processes (the Faithful's escape may or may not have been the aid of the Valar). Númenor fell down into the Sea because that was according to the laws of physics. Sauron survived the Downfall because his ability to do so was part of his natural spiritual potency. Since Eru mostly decided (or was constrained) to let the laws of physics take place, it's no mystery why the innocent died as well in the huge catastrophe.

But I still think people's problem with this is to make Eru equal to God in their minds. Eru nowhere calls himself "good", "moral", or "right" that I know of, so he is not constrained to play nice. Eru is Sternness. That's the only attribute I've ever been able to ascribe to him consistently, anyway.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Tar-Telperien

(the Faithful's escape may or may not have been the aid of the Valar).

I don't feel like adding any long posts now, so I'll just add a little bit of my knowledge to this, because I remember it being written there:

Originally Posted by Akallabeth

But whether or no it were that Amandil came indeed to Valinor and Manwë hearkened to his prayer, by grace of the Valar Elendil and his sons and their people were spared from the ruin of that day.

[Tar-Telperien]

Originally Posted by Břicho

Then why would Eru punish them at all? Why should he protect the rest of the world from Numenor? Why would he care if men picked a fight with the Valar?

People are too dead set on looking at this as a punishment!

As I said before, Eru reacted to the request of the Valar to do something. He repaired the problem that had been there in the first place: namely, giving Men an unfair command not to sail beyond an arbitrary line. The Valar should not have put Men in such a tempting situation; they should have known that the "Ban system" is an ultimately untenable situation for Men to be in.

So Eru fixed that problem in the best (i.e., most permanent) way possible. Since the Númenóreans had decided not to have any concern for Eru's existence and/or actions in Arda, he ignored them accordingly. It was willful ignorance repaying willful ignorance. Eru wasn't going to perform any miracles in keeping Númenor afloat on their behalf if they hated him and didn't want him interfering with their lives and beliefs (they did, after all, think him a malicious phantom invented by the Valar). This concept is a bit difficult to explain, but don't you think that, if the Númenóreans spent their lives saying and acting as if Eru did not exist, he was justified in acting as if they did not exist? Eru does not "baby people". He lets them see the logical conclusions of their beliefs. This is an example of that.

That the physical aspects of the Breaking of the World included the Downfall should not be considered amazing. Eressëa was saved from it because it was taken off the world proper and thus protected from physics as we know it. But Númenor was still on the world, and was included in the catastrophe. Of course, that it happened to bring down a very unjust society while simultaneously greatly injuring its seducer and terrorizer is, perhaps, a little more than coincidential.