Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
|
View Poll Results: Is Eru God? | |||
Yes | 43 | 66.15% | |
No | 22 | 33.85% | |
Voters: 65. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
11-16-2005, 08:08 AM | #1 |
Gibbering Gibbet
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Beyond cloud nine
Posts: 1,844
|
Is Eru God?
OK, here's one for you all to consider:
Is Eru God? Please note that the question isn't, "Is Eru the god of Middle-Earth?" (he pretty clearly is) but, is Eru the Elvish name for God (Jehovah)? There's a lot hanging on this question: if you believe that Eru is God, then you are saying that the moral "rules" of M-E are Christian. If you believe that Eru is not God, then those "rules" are something else. I did a search for threads on this topic but kept getting messages that the search terms I used (Eru, God, is eru god, what is eru) are "too common": so obviously there's a lot of material out there already. If you know of a thread post it here please so we can all review it.
__________________
Scribbling scrabbling. |
11-16-2005, 09:35 AM | #2 |
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,997
|
Oh, two votes already. Here I was thinking that, if no one actually votes, what could then ensue would be a discussion of the void. But I guess people have now chosen to avoid that possibility.
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. |
11-16-2005, 09:43 AM | #3 |
Messenger of Hope
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: In a tiny, insignificant little town in one of the many States.
Posts: 5,076
|
Is there going to be no explaining why they voted thus? Estelyn, why did you say no? Lommy. . .why yes? I'm only waiting to vote until I can put my thoughts into words so that I could explain.
-- Folwren
__________________
A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. - C.S. Lewis |
11-16-2005, 10:00 AM | #4 | |
Gibbering Gibbet
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Beyond cloud nine
Posts: 1,844
|
Quote:
*coughsHookbilltheGoombacoughs*
__________________
Scribbling scrabbling. |
|
11-16-2005, 10:04 AM | #5 |
Shady She-Penguin
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In a far land beyond the Sea
Posts: 8,093
|
Sorry for not giving reasons...
I thought that since Tolkien was a christian and he said that ME was the same world we live in, wouldn't it just be logical that the god was same also?
__________________
Like the stars chase the sun, over the glowing hill I will conquer Blood is running deep, some things never sleep Double Fenris
|
11-16-2005, 10:56 AM | #6 |
Raffish Rapscallion
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Far from the 'Downs, it seems :-(
Posts: 2,835
|
I vote no thanks largely to Estelyn’s arguments. I was going to vote “yes” without much thought to it or, more than likely, not vote at all because; frankly, I don’t have much time to research the subject.
But I think Estelyn is entirely right. There are parallels, perhaps the largest one being that they both created a world, but, again, as Esty pointed out, Eru at no time seemed much interested in a personal relationship with his creation. There’s my explanation, & thanks to Esty for doing all the work of expressing it. |
11-16-2005, 09:47 AM | #7 |
Princess of Skwerlz
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: where the Sea is eastwards (WtR: 6060 miles)
Posts: 7,500
|
No.
Eru Ilúvatar is not the God of the Christian Bible (nor the Jewish Yahwe of the Old Testament). Yes, both create the worlds in which their creatures live, including the sentient creatures. Yes, both are good. There are quite a few other comparisons as well. However, the most important, decisive difference is this: The God of the Bible seeks a personal relationship with his created people. From the very beginning, he establishes contact and reveals himself to them (walking with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden). He continues to reveal himself to individuals and then chooses a people to be his representative in the world - the people of Israel. He reveals himself in the word, spoken and later written, given to humans but intended for transmission as the revelation of his will. Finally, he reveals himself in his incarnation as a man. Nowhere in Tolkien's works (with the exception of the possible look ahead in the "Athrabeth") do we see Eru attempt to contact his "children". The only ones of his creation whom he speaks with are the Ainur - mostly the Valar, but we do not know what was involved in the return of Gandalf, so that is still a possibility. Eru keeps his distance - he does not enter Arda. From what we see, at least, there is little or no knowledge of him among Men. And even the Elves, who are apparently more "religious" than the other races, do not address him directly. They pray to the Valar. Eru is not God. And quite frankly, I wouldn't trade creators with the people of Middle-earth! [edit: Cross-posted with Folwren. Obviously, the first word of my post is in answer to Fordim's question, not hers.]
__________________
'Mercy!' cried Gandalf. 'If the giving of information is to be the cure of your inquisitiveness, I shall spend all the rest of my days in answering you. What more do you want to know?' 'The whole history of Middle-earth...' |
11-16-2005, 11:01 AM | #8 | |
Sword of Spirit
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Oh, I'm around.
Posts: 1,401
|
I was going to vote Yes. That was until I read Esty's post. Very nice points, Estelyn.
I'd like to add to, and somewhat reiterate, what she said. First, that Eru does not seek a personal relationship, which is the core of Christian belief. The main difference then is the fact that God became incarnate and walked among us. It is debatable that Eru's presence was in Middle-Earth for a short time(s), but I think I've just heard that somewhere else on the 'Downs (I know I've never read it myself). But here's another difference. God is a Trinity. Eru is not. You could say that Eru is more like the Father within the Trinity, but you cannot say he is the Son or the Spirit. But even saying that Eru is like the Father is wrong, because the Old Testament tells us that God was active in the world, long before Jesus' birth. Whereas Eru is very 'stand-offish'. I'd reason that Tolkien meant for Iluvatar to be akin to God, and to be the god of Middle-Earth, but he did not make him the same God. Quote:
__________________
I'm on a Mission from God. |
|
11-16-2005, 11:30 AM | #9 |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: In a world grown ever smaller.
Posts: 678
|
well, ill add my two cents.
i've always seen the "creation" of middle-earth/arda as two separate parts. (i don't know if this is how its supposed to be viewed, though i makes sense to me.) the first part is the three themes of music. in this section, Eru acts very much how I've always though God would. (except in teh judgment of melkor.) He is involved and active. there is more personal relationships, as he raises up manwe to combat melkor's cacophany. you could kind of see it as god and the angles here. the next part is kind of wierd. he shows the ainur the vision of teh world, and then creates it. the valar go down into it and dwell there, along with their mia, and melkor. here it is kind of passed on to Manwe and the Valar. they become sort of like teh "god's", with their angles being miar. but you can't really make a comparision between them and God, i suppose. it seems to me that Eru gave a "gift" to the Valar: to fastion arda into waht it was in the vision. i guess they can do whatever they want with it (ei. lets make a mountain range here, put some lamps there, etc., as the vision was rather vague, if i recall correctly.) Eru doesn't really have much to do with it, except in extreme matters, such as the destructino of Numenor. so i would have to conclude that Eru doesn't act as "God" for middle-earth. i guess maybe he could for whatever region he dwells in with teh ainur.
__________________
I've got bridge club on Wednesday,
Archery on Thursday, Dancing on a Friday night! |
11-16-2005, 11:40 AM | #10 |
Alive without breath
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: On A Cold Wind To Valhalla
Posts: 5,912
|
Sorry for not justifying my vote yet, I've not had time yet... but here goes.
This is how I see it: Middle Earth was supposed to be a new mythology for England and (not meaning to sound pompous or high and mighty) therefore this world. Therefore, I think that as Eru created Middle Earth (and hence this world) that he is supposed to be Tolkien's showing of God in the creation. Doubtless, I'm wrong.
__________________
I think that if you want facts, then The Downer Newspaper is probably the place to go. I know! I read it once. THE PHANTOM AND ALIEN: The Legend of the Golden Bus Ticket... |
11-16-2005, 12:05 PM | #11 |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Pennsylvania, WtR, passed Sarn Gebir: Above the rapids (1239 miles) BtR, passed Black Rider Stopping Place (31 miles)
Posts: 1,548
|
Reason for voting yes follows the line of:
"If it looks like a duck and talks like a duck, chances are it's a duck." The Silmarillion beginning makes it clear that Ea is monotheistic, and the valar are essentially angelic spirits, so Eru is God. Of course, being a pre-Christian world Eru is a more generalized deity.
__________________
Aure Entuluva! |
11-16-2005, 12:01 PM | #12 | |
Regal Dwarven Shade
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: A Remote Dwarven Hold
Posts: 3,592
|
An exercise in frustration
As much as I would like to vote, I can't. I've just spent some time rereading relevant passages in the Letters. Estelyn makes excellent points, however, Tolkien seems ambiguous on the subject. He repeatedly uses the word "God" (capitalized) to refer to Eru (as one example of this ambiguoity.) He also uses the phrase "true God" a number of times.
I think there may be a reason why he did not write about a more involved creator. Quote:
I think the question is unanswerable.
__________________
...finding a path that cannot be found, walking a road that cannot be seen, climbing a ladder that was never placed, or reading a paragraph that has no... |
|
11-16-2005, 12:09 PM | #13 | |
Gibbering Gibbet
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Beyond cloud nine
Posts: 1,844
|
Quote:
|
|
11-18-2005, 03:09 AM | #14 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Hidden Spirit
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,424
|
I voted yes for reasons that I feel are very obvious and that have already been brought up. However, I will add that I disagree with the following:
Quote:
Now I'm going to comment on everything else, all at once, and pay absolutely no attention to who is saying anything. Replies will follow quotes. Feel free to sip all of the rest. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Done now, might come back later.
__________________
What's a burrahobbit got to do with my pocket, anyways? |
||||||||||||||||||||||
11-18-2005, 04:07 AM | #15 | |||
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! |
|||
11-18-2005, 08:41 AM | #16 | ||
La Belle Dame sans Merci
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
peace
|
||
11-19-2005, 09:38 AM | #17 | |||
Stormdancer of Doom
|
Quote:
It seems like splitting hairs and in some sense it is, I guess. But it also seems to me like Tolkien set it up pretty cleary, so that those who worshipped Sauron (even in unintentional confusion, thinking him good) were led to do what they should have known was wrong (human sacrifie, etc) and so should have realised that worshipping Sauron was wrong. In that case I would have called it idolatry. Quote:
Once more, the canonicity thread reappears, continued here, again, still.
__________________
...down to the water to see the elves dance and sing upon the midsummer's eve. Last edited by mark12_30; 11-19-2005 at 09:42 AM. |
|||
11-18-2005, 10:59 AM | #18 | |
Alive without breath
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: On A Cold Wind To Valhalla
Posts: 5,912
|
Quote:
That's how I see it anyway.
__________________
I think that if you want facts, then The Downer Newspaper is probably the place to go. I know! I read it once. THE PHANTOM AND ALIEN: The Legend of the Golden Bus Ticket... |
|
11-18-2005, 12:58 PM | #19 |
Alive without breath
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: On A Cold Wind To Valhalla
Posts: 5,912
|
A Thought has just occurred to me.
What I thought of was this: Tolkien wanted to write a new Mythology. He loved all the old mythologies in Norse and such. Most of those had multiple gods (like Thor and the crew) so he incorporated this into Middle Earth in the Valar. He probably wanted to keep alive to the minds of his audience that there was One God and so he incorporated Eru to be the master creator and satisfy both the idea of the multiple gods and the One God. You could probably say that this would mean that Eru was not God (Jehovah) but I beg to differ. I think that Tolkien's Christian beliefs would have lead him to use Eru as Jehovah and so, perhaps, spread the Christian message. Any thoughts?
__________________
I think that if you want facts, then The Downer Newspaper is probably the place to go. I know! I read it once. THE PHANTOM AND ALIEN: The Legend of the Golden Bus Ticket... |
11-28-2005, 09:51 AM | #20 |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 3,448
|
I confess to voting without reading the first post i clicked yes and when i read the first post i change my vote to no
EDIT: to make this post more objective here are some thoughts...Eru can be god if you want him to be...I could be god and technicly there is no way to disprove that(Im kidding I know god knows that thats why i wont be struck by lightning) what im saying is god is anyone you want him or her (as the case more likely is) to be
__________________
Morsul the Resurrected |
11-28-2005, 11:10 AM | #21 |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: In a world grown ever smaller.
Posts: 678
|
yes, but that is only kind of true. you can think of god as anything you want. and you can believe god is anything you want. but that doesn't change who God really is.
in other words, you can believe an idol to be God, but that doesn't make it God. God is God no matter what you or i believe. i think the bottom line is that Eru displays none of the charactersistics of the Christian/Jewish (aka Jehovah) God. which would be personal relationships, mercy, grace, etc. here is something else to think about. you can't really make any kind of comparison about Eru and God without looking at morality. in the christian view, if you sin, you're screwed, except for grace and jesus' blood. in teh middle-earth consept, that is not always true. the sons of feanor didn't really get punished all that much. (correctly me if im wrong, i believe they just got extra long time in the halls of mandos, which isn't much to an immortal elf.) It never says much about the fate of men, not to mention the fate of good men, and evil men. or even what make you a good man or an evil man. (well the evil is obvious i guess. but many of teh "good" men did bad things. it seems as if Eru/the powers that be that represent Eru's intetions and wishes are quite a bit more linitent that God. and sin is a huge, major deal to God.
__________________
I've got bridge club on Wednesday,
Archery on Thursday, Dancing on a Friday night! |
11-28-2005, 11:57 AM | #22 | |
La Belle Dame sans Merci
|
Quote:
__________________
peace
|
|
11-28-2005, 12:15 PM | #23 | ||
Doubting Dwimmerlaik
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Heaven's basement
Posts: 2,466
|
Quote:
Quote:
Is that the making of the next poll where one indicates his/her belief system and also how he/she perceives Eru? I'd wager that you'd see a strong correlation between 'beliefs' and the text.
__________________
There is naught that you can do, other than to resist, with hope or without it.
|
||
11-28-2005, 12:28 PM | #24 |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Someday, I'll rule all of it.
Posts: 1,696
|
If we assume the LoTR is a history, it would probably be in the BC era, which, according to the Old Testament, faith and repentance were the saving grace, and nothing else. The "good guys" in LoTR seemed, for the most part, to have this faith in Eru, and to truly repent when they screwed up. And just because a character didn't fight for Suaron, it doesn't make him necessarily a "good guy" (I point to Denethor.)
Eru does fit the Deist view of God, which says that God created the world and then left it to it's own devices. Many Christians were and still are Deists, both Catholic and Non-Catholic. So it is very possible that Tolkien had a similar view. (I think from the quotes provided it is clear what Tolkien thought.) However, Eru does act, albeit indirectly and subtlely, throught the story; and it is obvious that unseen forces are moving on both sides. Eru shows mercy in the Silm. several times, and demonstrates love of His children, both the first and second born, by giving them different gifts.
__________________
We can't all be Roas when it comes to analysing... -Lommy I didn't say you're evil, Roa, I said you're exasperating. -Nerwen |
11-28-2005, 12:43 PM | #25 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
What interests me is the way reading LotR in the light of the Sil affects our understanding of the story, & in particular our understanding of Frodo's fate. Helen's post makes this point. The 'permanent problem' of evil in LotR is dealt with & answered if we read it in the light of the Sil. If we don't the problem remains unanswered. Yet many readers find The Sil difficult & have little or no time for it. It doesn't move them in the way LotR does. I wonder if this is because it offers answers to those very 'permanent problems' & that on some level those answers seem either over complex & metaphysical, or overly simplistic. Maybe those readers just feel 'No, that's not it' - even if they can't supply the 'right' answers for themselves. LotR simply presents us with the kind of world we know, where sacrifice & suffering, selfishness & loss, cruelty, beauty, love & grief are facts of existence, existing for themselves. The Sil attempts to explain the 'why' of those things. The Sil introduces the necessity for 'faith', trust & belief in things 'beyond the circles of the World' - it requires those things from readers if they are to enter into the story. LotR does not. For all Tolkien's protests it is, ultimately, a 'secular' novel - yes, there are 'believers' in it (notably the Elves, hymning Elbereth) but there is no necessity for the reader to believe what they do. Certainly, the massive popularity of LotR over the Sil says a great deal about our age. I daresay if the novels had been published 500 years ago the Sil would have been the more popular work. |
|
11-29-2005, 03:04 PM | #26 | |
Itinerant Songster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Edge of Faerie
Posts: 7,066
|
Quote:
Like you, davem, I think that Tolkien has done us a service in revivifying the old pagan myths, because there were riches of truth in them. To read LotR as a pagan novel is certainly possible, but it still misses much. Too much that Tolkien included, on purpose. To suggest that Tolkien became obsessed after LotR was published, to make it appear that there was something (Eru) in it that he hadn't put in there in the first place, doesn't square with the evidence. Tolkien plainly stated that LotR was consciously Catholic in the revision. Otherwise, Tolkien was faking himself out, and that might be going just a bit far.... It seems to me that you have to take huge efforts to wrestle the facts into this theory. Occam's Razor obtains here. Regardless, the spiritual power in the books goes beyond anything in pagan myth. Of course, that's an opinion based on my personal perceptions, but that's what I experience when I read LotR. |
|
11-29-2005, 05:47 PM | #27 |
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
|
Hold the front pages!
Well I do declare! It appears that davem is arguing in support of the reader's freedom to intepret, as against the primacy of authorial intention ...
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! |
11-29-2005, 07:20 PM | #28 | |
La Belle Dame sans Merci
|
Quote:
__________________
peace
|
|
11-30-2005, 10:55 AM | #29 | ||
Itinerant Songster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Edge of Faerie
Posts: 7,066
|
Quote:
if the evidence is most weighty such that author's intention and reader interpretation ought to be one thing, then the reader may think what s/he wishes all the day long and still be wrong. Quote:
|
||
11-30-2005, 11:06 AM | #30 | |
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
|
All aboard the Canonicity Express!
Now boreding at a platforum near you (again) ...
Quote:
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! |
|
11-30-2005, 01:10 PM | #31 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
Its clear that early critics did not pick up on the 'Christianity' that Tolkien states is there - but is it really there? If it can (& often is) read & enjoyed by readers who do not percieve any Christian elements in it (even ones familiar with the tenets of that faith) then Christianity is obviously not something that underlies the story. I find it very interesting that when readers/reviewers/critics assigned to the story an underlying political allegory (War of the Ring = WWII) he roundly condemned the idea, but the vaguest suggestion of any 'similarity' between elements in the story & aspects of Christianity produced the most positive response. Let's face it, the similarities between Elbereth* & Isis are far stronger than those between Elbereth & Mary. His famous statemment that the book is 'a fundamentally Catholic work, unconsciously so at first, but consciously so in the revision' is simply not true - read HoM-e. Any 'revision' of the story was made for artistic reasons, or because he realised 'what really happened'. He even contradicted himself in statements in the Letters - in one he claims that the events at Mount Doom are an exemplification of the words in the Lord's Prayer 'Forgive us our tresspasses as we forgive those who tresspass against us. Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil'. In other letters he states that it is the inner dynamic of the story so far that dictated those events. The culminating events may well exemplify the words of Jesus, but Tolkien only 'realised' that after the book was published. I think its pretty clear that he wrote the story as a story, letting it flow & waiting till he realised 'what really happened'. After publication he seems to have become distressed by statements that it was a religion-free work & eagerly took up every suggestion of an underlying Christianity. My feeling is that Tolkien never 'revised' LotR to make it 'fundamentally Christian & Catholic work' - except in his own mind after the fact. He wrote a story. Only after publication, when it wasn't recognised as the work of a Christian, did he feel he had to 'prove its credentials'. * As she appears in LotR, that is.
__________________
“Everything was an object. If you killed a dwarf you could use it as a weapon – it was no different to other large heavy objects." Last edited by davem; 11-30-2005 at 02:24 PM. |
|
|
|