Is Eru God?

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Gurthang

[*]Do you believe that Eru is God and so Christian morals are in M-E.
This question is flawed in my opinion. (And I know it is not directly asked, but it was implied.) By what I said above, Eru(Iluvatar) does not mean God(Jehovah), but I still hold that Christian morals are in M-E. But that violates the nature of the question.
[*]Do you believe that Eru is not God and so Christian morals are not in M-E?
Pretty much the same as above.

I don't see how "Christian Morals" come into it - I rather think that the morals so described may be held by those of other religions or none.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Furthermore, many Christians, Catholics anyway, will tell you that the Muslims believe in the same God as us, they simply don't have the same beliefs concerning how to live under Him here on earth.

Note that contrary to what people believe, the gods of the People of the Book (Jews, Christians, Muslims) are irreconciliably different. And as someone once said, words mean exactly what you pour into them. You say "dog" and everyone pictures their favorite pooch. What we tend to forget is that my dog is a border collie and yours is a beagle.

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

[davem]

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

As to why he did it this way Saucy, I don't know, but I see no problem in it insofar as he was writing two different books: one more 'allegorical' and one more 'applicable'. He was striving for different effects in each so it makes sense to me that he would have different approaches to how he crafted them.

Ok, but this thread is discussing Eru & as Eru doesn't appear in LotR I'm not sure it gets us very far.

[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.

[Gurthang]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

I don't see how "Christian Morals" come into it - I rather think that the morals so described may be held by those of other religions or none.

I'm not sure why they come into play either. I was just responding to what Fordim stated in his first post of the thread.

[Roa_Aoife]

Originally Posted by alatar

Note that contrary to what people believe, the gods of the People of the Book (Jews, Christians, Muslims) are irreconciliably different.

Actually, the view of God (the Father) is the same for all three. The view of Jesus is where things start to sperate. But we really, really shouldn't get into that.

And davem is right- Eru is never really mentioned in LoTR, just implied. For that matter, the Valar are pretty much the same.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Gurthang

I'm not sure why they come into play either. I was just responding to what Fordim stated in his first post of the thread.

Sorry - that wasn't meant to be personal - I was having trouble finding the original quote.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Note that contrary to what people believe, the gods of the People of the Book (Jews, Christians, Muslims) are irreconciliably different.

Actually, the view of God (the Father) is the same for all three. The view of Jesus is where things start to sperate. But we really, really shouldn't get into that.

Not realy. If someone makes something but lets someone else look after it, does that make the look-after-er the creator? No.

Excellent points all, but let's try to avoid going down this particular road shall we? The Wight himself in all his wisdom has declared that the Downs is here to discuss matters Tolkien-related and that all discussions theological, political and social should take place privately. I don't know about the rest of you but I tremble in my gibbet at the notion of being Barrow Wighted, so let's keep this on point....

[Gothmog]

Excellent points all, but let's try to avoid going down this particular road shall we? The Wight himself in all his wisdom has declared that the Downs is here to discuss matters Tolkien-related and that all discussions theological, political and social should take place privately. I don't know about the rest of you but I tremble in my gibbet at the notion of being Barrow Wighted, so let's keep this on point....

True! And you better watch out, I got an unsigned neg rep for saying the same thing as Roa_Aoife said in his post. Whoever gave me it, I would be glad if you could pm me and explain to me if there was more to that neg rep than personal feelings for that subject. Sorry if I'm off-topic...

Mithalwen:

I don't see how "Christian Morals" come into it - I rather think that the morals so described may be held by those of other religions or none.

I couldn't agree more. What in the ME rules of morale makes it Christian? What separates it from what is normally considered good or bad, all over the world? I think the morale of ME reflects common sense and a view of things that isn't related to religion.

[Bergil]

A lot of you seem to be mentally making tolkien into a demented Spanish Inquisition type. I beleive that's the worst villan in the world, the one who wants to control the thought process as well as the deeds. if your opinion of him was that low, you wouldn't be here. You're all very brave, insulting a dead man.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Bergil, I have been keeping a close eye on this discussion, and I cannot see where you take your opinion that anyone is attempting to insult Tolkien. The question here, and most have understood it well enough to differentiate, concerns personal opinions on a character that he wrote. Each and every member is entitled to express his/her opinion, and it is expected that all do it in a polite way. Should the discussion get too far afield, one of the moderators or administrators will step in. That has not been necessary yet, and knowing my fellow Downers, I doubt that it will be.

[Mister Underhill]

This is a little off-center, but one thing that fascinates me about the theology/morality of LotR is that Tolkien very deliberately made an effort to exclude overt, direct links to Christian religion:

...there was and is all the Arthurian world, but powerful as it is, it is imperfectly naturalized, associated with the soil of Britain but not with English; and does not replace what I felt to be missing. For one thing its 'faerie' is too lavish, and fantastical, incoherent and repetitive. For another and more important thing: it is involved in, and explicitly contains the Christian religion.

For reasons which I will not elaborate, that seems to me fatal. Myth and fairy-story must, as all art, reflect and contain in solution elements of moral and religious truth (or error), but not explicit, not in the known form of the primary 'real' world.

--Letter 131

I would claim, if I did not think it presumptuous in one so ill-instructed, to have as one object the elucidation of truth, and the encouragement of good morals in this real world, by the ancient device of exemplifying them in unfamiliar embodiments, that may tend to 'bring them home'.

--Letter 153

It's interesting to me that he found, or sensed, that the best way to talk about the truths that he held so dear was to not talk about them, if you take my meaning. To portray the underlying truth without the trapping, or in a different trapping. I don't know what that has to do with this discussion, just something that comes up for me as I read through the thread.

Also, I think some posters are taking the idea of the legendarium as pre-history a little too far. At some point you are forced to consider Tolkien's stories as "alternate history", no? I mean we have two creation stories at the very least which aren't reconcilable. There's no way for the Silmarillion to pre-date Genesis: "In the beginning..."

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

I mean we have two creation stories at the very least which aren't reconcilable. There's no way for the Silmarillion to pre-date Genesis: "In the beginning..."

Nice use of the letters, Mr. U. Did you use those on the Canonicity thread? I think this is a very important aspect of Tolkien, that he wanted active, or perhaps interactive, readers, rather than passive ones.

But as to two creation stories, actually Genesis itself has two, or at least two accounts of primeval time, and I have always rather thought of the Ainulindale and the Valaquenta similarly. So that makes four.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

But as to two creation stories, actually Genesis itself has two, or at least two accounts of primeval time, and I have always rather thought of the Ainulindale and the Valaquenta similarly. So that makes four.

Heck, throw in John 1:1 and you have yet another version of the creation story, one that I think particularly pertinent and resonant with Tolkien: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God".

But I digress.

It's interesting to me that he found, or sensed, that the best way to talk about the truths that he held so dear was to not talk about them, if you take my meaning. To portray the underlying truth without the trapping, or in a different trapping.

Misty Undy: I think this is what I was trying to get at myself when I wrote above about Tolkien's having given his story the 'odour' of the sacred, but you do it much better. Reading LotR always reminds me of a particular fish pond in Istanbul -- bear with me. The fish pond dates back to Persian Empire when it was said that the fish were sacred to the water deity of Asia Minor. Then Greece conquered the city, renamed it Byzantium, and the pond was full of fish sacred to Poseiden. The Greece fell to Rome, the city was once again renamed Constantinople and the fish were sacred to Neptune. Then Rome became Christian and the fish were the descendants of those caught by the apostles and which Christ had used for his miracle of the loaves and the fishes. Then the Ottomans conquered the city, renamed it Istanbul, and the fish suddenly lived in a pond that had been created by a miracle of Allah... The point being that even though different beliefs and creeds have come and gone, that particular place (which is quite beautiful) has throughout the millenia maintained a sense of sacredness. The people who have claimed it may have disagreed as to which god or God it was who had sanctified the place, but they all agreed that it was a holy place.

Middle-Earth seems to me to be very much that kind of a place.

[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.

[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.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by burrahobbit

NO. WRONG. God is God, the other ones are NOT God. That is the same sort of reasoning as saying the Black Numenoreans the worshipped Sauron/Morgoth were actually worshiping Eru, because it's all the same anyway. It is not the same, it is idolatry.

Idolatry or just plain confusion. For it to be idolatry (in the Christian sense), one would have to be aware that the god in question wasn't YHWH and worship it anyway. That's why the first two commandments are to separate ones; 1) No other gods before me; 2) no idols. The reasoning for the wrong choice can vary.

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.

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Why should "Tolkien's rules" bind the reader when they have no direct bearing on the story?

Once more, the canonicity thread reappears, continued here, again, still.

[Folwren]

There's been so much writing since I was last on here that I don't really want to read it all. So I won't, but I would like to say one last thing before going.

It is my understanding that Tolkien wrote about M-E and fashioned it so that Great Britain could have a mythological backround. If this is the case, this would be far before Jesus Christ was ever around, but also before anyone ever knew about God.

If that is the case, then I don't believe that Eru would be the equivilant of the Christain God, Jehovah. Tolkien (don't anybody leap on me because I'm about to write as if I actually knew what he thought, which I don't) wanted one god over all of Middle-Earth because it just made sense. However, he put many other gods below himself to take care and form the Earth - these gods, or Valar, were the gods of water, air, plants, and all the other things, much like the Romans and Greeks had, or the Indians and Chineese and whoever else have mythology and made up gods. I mean, he wanted his mythology to be like the other old ones, that is to say, he fashioned them after the old works (many titles have been brought up here).

And I'm not writing this down very well, but see here. God doesn't apoint different angels over all the different things on Earth -weather, sun, moon, what not - but directs them all himself. The Valar did all that kind of work. Eru remained far off and distant, watching the Valar and their progess, but really taking little part in it most of the time. That is different than God ever was, even before Jesus came. God did talk to his people BC, and he didn't leave their fates in the hands of his subordinates.

This post is a bit unclear - had a late night last night, but it's all I can give you just now.

-- Folwren

[Lalwendë]

If Eru is God, then he is Tolkien's God, and he seems to ahve had a very tortured and idiosyncratic relationship with God. Firstly, Tolkien obviously endured immense mental suffering during WWI seeing his friends (and other men) slaughtered ostensibly for no good reason. Looking at the quotes davem has already posted, this is clear. Secondly, Tolkien undoubtedly had more than spiritual reasons for being a Catholic; it was his mother's religion and was important to him for this reason. It could have been said to have been his own 'precious', as it linked him to a loved parent.

So it appears Tolkien had a God he loved, and a God with motives he struggled to fully understand (of course none of us can ever truly know of any other person's relationship with God so we can only take evidence from what is written). This latter God appeared to demand blood sacrifice, like Odin (I think it was Fea who first mentioned this), and was not forgiving, not gentle. This God only seemed to offer a living Hell. I don't think it's coincidence that Tolkien stopped going to church during the 20s. He clearly had a difficult relationship with God and came to understand Him as a God who demanded not just worship but full on blood sacrifice.

Look at what happens in his work. This is a God who is not worshipped, whose only relationship with his people is to demand their lives every now and then (Numenor, Frodo) for the greater good. What Frodo goes through is very much like what the young conscript goes through. He is sent off to fight, to complete a suicide mission; he does not fully comprehend what will happen to him and only at Mount Doom does he realise what fate has in store for him. Against the odds he survives but only just, as what he ends up with is pure torment and Hell. He gets no reward. For all we know, his going off to the Undying Lands may as well be like taking his own life. We know he is mortal and going there is unlikely to change this; at best he might get a little comfort before he dies, but no reward of returning to his former life, no reward of going to 'Heaven'. What hapens to Frodo is horrible.

Yet what happens is compatible with the God that Tolkien knew, as he was inscrutable, sometimes incredibly cruel, but could somehow not be rejected. The other noticeable thing about this God is that he leaves the people to sort out just about all their problems and there is little intervention. For all the god it does the people, they might as well not have Eru. It demonstrates Tolkien's very difficult relationship with God. Where others who had been through what he went through entirely rejected God, he held onto his belief, seemingly only just, but at the expense of knowing a good God.

Looking at it from personal experience, my father rejected God after trauma, and says he would like to believe in God but cannot. I on the other hand believe in a God (though what I call it I don't know, although I know it is not trinitarian) but I cannot see the point in a veangeful or cruel God as I believe "Hell is other people". Anyone who has been through Hell may come out of it the other side with an idiosyncratic view of God, and this is what happened to Tolkien. Looked at this way, one of the major themes of his work may be the struggle to deal with a veangeful God who you cannot let go of.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lalwende

Looked at this way, one of the major themes of his work may be the struggle to deal with a veangeful God who you cannot let go of.

I think it is the psychological 'tension' Tolkien felt between the reality he had known - losing his parents, his closest friends & having seen man's inhumanity to man on a scale never before experienced (which must have tempted him to question the existence of a caring God) - & his inability to reject God because of his mother's 'martyrdom' for her faith, which may actually have enabled him to produce his Legendarium, to spend most of his life producing it. That inner conflict had to be dealt with. God stands back & allows waste & suffering on a collossal scale - why doesn't he intervene & stop it???

Yet his own mother gave her life for that very God. To reject God would be to reject his own mother - or at least to declare that she was wrong & her death unnecessary (she quite possibly wouldn't have died if she had not become Catholic & brought her family's rejection & withdrawal of financial support on herself & her children).

I don't think that Tolkien's God was simply a 'vengeful' Deity who demanded human blood, & was glorified by that, but I do think he had that aspect to Him. Of course, Tolkien had to find some reason, or justification, for his mother's God having such a 'dark' side.

[littlemanpoet]

Regardless of how much can be garnered from Tolkien's Legendarium, Letters, and authorized Biography, attempting to psychologize the nature of his beliefs runs the inevitable risk of saying more about oneself than one says about Tolkien. Very astute points have been made, but I still find the commentary of Lalwendë and davem, for example, more revelatory about their own beliefs than those of Tolkien. Lalwendë, your own comments are very well qualified by a host of "seems" and "appears", as well as the admittance that I refer to above. Nevertheless, we cannot help but be inaccurate in our attempted portrayal of Tolkien's beliefs, at least from a psychological frame of reference. I imagine that a theological frame of reference may serve a little better, but I don't think very many people would be satisifed with that, in so much as it would either require a Roman Catholic (or at least Christian) context, or a non-RCC context that would be by turns just as innaccurate as a psychological.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Out of curiousity, I went to the source -- the Oxford English Dictionary -- to find if "eru" is a 'real' word. It is not, but eruv is. It's Hebrew and means:

Any of various symbolic arrangements which extend the private domain of Jewish households into public areas, thereby permitting activities in them that are normally forbidden in public on the Sabbath; spec. an urban area within which such an arrangement obtains, and which is symbolically enclosed by a wire boundary.

So an eruv (or the variant erub) is a public, social space that has been symbolically 'made' or converted into a private, religious space...soooooooo interesting. Is it too much of a stretch to see Eru as Tolkien's own extension into the public domain of his own "private domain"...? Given that the man was fond of, in his own words, "low philologic jokes" is it possible to see him using the narratives of Middle-Earth as "symbolic arrangements which extend the private domain of [Tolkien's] household into public areas, thereby permitting activities in them that are normally forbidden in public"????

(For what it's worth, the closest words I could find in the Latin family are eructate: "to vomit forth" and erudite: "learned, scholarly"; in Old English there's -ere: the masculine suffix (-es/-as) that "signifies a person or agent" and maybe ǽr-: a prefix meaning "early, former, preceding, ancient")

[Child of the 7th Age]

Oh, dear, I read these posts and tried to crawl in bed and sleep, but I felt compelled to get up and answer.....

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.

Helen

My thoughts are much closer to yours than they are to the depiction of Eru that Davem and Lalwende have put forward. I see Tolkien's Eru as distant and removed. But with all due respect, I do not see the demand for and glorification of human blood being one essential aspect of Eru in the Legendarium, which Davem's post states. Most of what is evil we bring on our own heads without help from the outside. I also have a problem with the portrayal of Frodo as an example of God's demanding and unreasonable nature:

Look at what happens in his work. This is a God who is not worshipped, whose only relationship with his people is to demand their lives every now and then (Numenor, Frodo) for the greater good. What Frodo goes through is very much like what the young conscript goes through. He is sent off to fight, to complete a suicide mission; he does not fully comprehend what will happen to him and only at Mount Doom does he realise what fate has in store for him. Against the odds he survives but only just, as what he ends up with is pure torment and Hell. He gets no reward. For all we know, his going off to the Undying Lands may as well be like taking his own life. We know he is mortal and going there is unlikely to change this; at best he might get a little comfort before he dies, but no reward of returning to his former life, no reward of going to 'Heaven'. What hapens to Frodo is horrible.

What happens to Frodo is sad, terribly sad, but it is not "horrible". Frodo was told, even from the beginning, that he could lose his life if he took on the task laid before him. Yet it was made equally evident that not taking on that task could result in the destruction of everything he knew and loved in the Shire. The full realization of what that meant came only slowly, but it was certainly not hidden from him.

Secondly, Frodo was given a choice. No God bludgeoned him over the head or put a knife to his throat. Sometimes, doing what is right is darned hard but you know in your heart what you have to do. Frodo was a decent person/Hobbit and he came to understand that. That he was injured horribly was true, and the general populace in the Shire did not recognize the sacrifice he made. Yet he was not without hope or friends. The support of Sam as well as the author's suggestion that the latter eventually sailed to the West, Arwen's attempt to give Frodo her seat on the vessel, Gandalf's gentle words of inquiry and how he made certain that Bilbo came with Frodo---to me this is not a scene of "horror" but of caring. I do not expect Eru to come flying down from the heavens to offer comfort and hope. Eru built these instincts into us, and it is our responsibility to respond with compassion. Frodo's friends clearly did this.

To assume that Frodo found no hope or relief in the West is to put words in the author's mouth that simply are not there. Nowhere in the Letters does Tolkien say Frodo would not find healing. He merely states that, like much in life, we simply do not know. But we have been told how much Frodo loved Elves and how the light in his eye came to gleem like a reflection of the splintered Silmarils caught in Galadriel's phial. If there is any mortal spirit who would be able to be healed across the Sea in Elvenhome, surely that would be Frodo.

I still think what we are dealing with here is not a difference in Eru but a difference in perspective. Somewhere in the Letters (I am too sleepy to dredge it up right now), Tolkien stated that one of the main reasons he wrote LotR and Silm was to see how men dealt with loss and hardship in an age when they had so little guidance: why and how they followed the path of "right" before they had been given any intimation of God's goodness and nature through revelation, and, in Tolkien's eyes, specifically through the incarnation. The author's eye then was not fixed on God or Eru, per se, but in looking at the response of men to the moral demands of the world. This is similar to Helen's statement above. Eru figures into this equation but only in a distant way, because that is the way the world worked in the pre-covenent period. If Eru is distant, it is because we are talking about the world before Abraham.

There is a second way that perspective comes into play here: that of our own personal perspective in reading the book. Littlemanpoet alluded to this in his post. If I had to use one word and only one word to describe the Legendarium, I would call it "bittersweet". The flashes of tragedy and horror are there, but so too is the steady undercurrent of hope. To view LotR largely from the negative side while failing to see the hope and light just won't work. And when we reduce Frodo's experience to "horror" or emphasize the "dark side" of Eru, we run the risk of erasing the clear line that exists between Sauron and the forces of light. I can't believe Tolkien would have wanted that.

There were clearly moments in life when the author was weighed down with despair. And yet there were other instances when we get a completely different picture. How else can you interpret the conversation between Andreth and Finrod? Tolkien felt so compelled to introduce the possibility of Eru entering into Arda that he even broke his own rule about "Christianity" not being part of the sub-created world. That conversation has always been magical to me: the tortured feelings of both parties, yet interspersed with the possibility of distant renewal. This interchange surely depicts a god of hope rather than anger or even distance.

_________________________

P.S. Can't help but add this, also in response to Lalwende . While no ritual is prescribed for the worship of Eru, Tolkien clearly states that those who follow Eru will combat the evils of the Shadow. I read this as essentially a moral directive: those who honor Eru will conduct themselves in such a way that their behavior will help to overthrow the evil posed by Morgoth and Sauron. To me, this moral imperative is far more significant than any ritual could possibly be.

[davem]

I can see & accept Child's points - but only if LotR is read in the light of the Legendarium (my usual way, admittedly). But in a recent conversation it was suggested that LotR is Tolkien's 'secular' novel. If we read LotR on its own, we don't get any sense of God being an active participant in the action. Gandalf is not 'an incarnate angel' to us, but a Wizard. Frodo's going into the West may (as Tolkien suggested in one of his letters) be read as an 'allegory' of death.

Remove his 'Christian' Eru from LotR & what do we get? Frodo sacrifices himself for others & dies. A 'reward' of some kind may be his, or it may not. Thus, it is the great 20th century novel to my mind & Tolkien is, in Shippey's phrase the 'Author of the Century' - he laid out our situation as human beings in a world where there is no hard evidence of an all powerful, loving God, where events like Gollum's fall may be seen as divine intervention or simple accident.

If Eru 'demands' Frodo's sacrifice He may be a Deity with both Light & Dark aspects, but nonetheless, He is a Deity the actually exists. What is the alternative? No Eru at all (which may be the case if we only read LotR) or an Eru who, in Gilson's words 'Canst only be glorified by man's own suffering & the supreme pain.' If Eru offers 'hope' to his Children it is hope which may only be found 'beyond the circles of the World', not within it. Hope, if it exists, exists with Eru, outside the World, yet LotR takes place within the World.

In short, if we include Eru in our understanding of LotR, make Him a player, we have to accept that he is 'inscrutable' (Gilson again), that he will allow suffering, if not actually require it, & that any 'reward' He gives to those who suffer for His (& other's) sake, is not recieved in this life. Neither does he deign to reveal even enough of himself to offer the smallest degree of reassurance to those who suffer for him that they suffer for a purpose. Eru kills the corrupted Numenoreans, but allows Sauron, their corrupter, to continue his existence in the world. The direct result of this is that Frodo will have to sacrifice himself to bring about his end.

If Eru 'chose' Frodo as Ringbearer, He also chose his ultimate fate. Eru's decision, way back before time, to allow Morgoth the freedom to alter the Music & then to enter into Arda, required Frodo's suffering. Frodo is destroyed because of Eru's choice - in other words, Frodo has to put right what Eru permitted.

[Lalwendë]

Presumptions and assumptions, that's all any of us really have to go on for what Tolkien truly felt about God. Applying theology isn't any different to applying psychology to his beliefs, how they were formed and how they developed; all we have to go on for evidence is the wealth of words written by and about Tolkien and none of us could hope to come close to understanding what he truly believed as the 'truth' of any person's relationship with God is utterly intangible.

Accepting that Tolkien's God is much more difficult and inscrutable than the kindly notions of God that many of us have come to know is not wrong. People of his generation were more likely to take the view that God could (and would) be cruel; my own Catholic grandmother used to tell me that God would smite me down and His way was His will. And you only have to look at a book of good, stirring Methodist hymns to see this view of God. Sacrifice and martyrdom has been, and is, a way of glorifying God.

Child expresses her belief in 'hope' through her post, and I too believe in 'hope', and through this I cling to the possibility that Frodo could have been healed too. But what the text lacks is any evidence that there truly is hope for Frodo. The great and the good contrive to obtain him a place in the ship to the West and judging by the evidence we have that Elves have powers of healing (e.g. Elrond healing Frodo's wounds at Rivendell) we might guess that he will at least receive some succour in the West. That gives us hope. But the cold hard fact is that the only thing that would truly heal Frodo is to turn back the clock and have none of this ever happen. When Frodo says "there is no real going back", then this is the truth; he will never return to his former state.

Frodo was indeed told that his task was dangerous, and he was given a choice, but do we know whether he fully comprehended that choice? I would say not, as it was not until Mount Doom that the awful truth dawned. Looking at this from real life, the servicemen who took part in experiments at Porton Down, and those who were involved in the atom bomb tests would have been told that their participation held risks, and though there may or may not have been choice involved, they would also have seen participation as their duty ("for the sake of my children and their children"). They would also end up hurt and would not be the same again, and though we can give them our compassion, it still does not undo the act or shut the Pandora's Box which was opened.

LotR, taken alone, has a very stark but modern ending. There is only a hope of succour, there are no promises and there is definitely no going back. I don't think it's only because the story is over that many people weep at the end of the book. Take LotR alone, without Eru, and the novel tells us that only the great efforts of human life can overcome evil, our hope lies with each other. Divinty is present, in the form of Light, but we do not know of Eru. Good and evil, Light and Dark are there but they are delineated through the actions of those who are 'good' or 'evil', not through reference to Eru.

But then take LotR in conjunction with the Silmarillion, and it becomes clear that there is a God in this world we are reading about, and it then becomes clear that this God is somewhat inscrutable, allowing suffering and we begin to ask why? Tolkien's answer as to why is that Eru just is, and it is his will. The Long Defeat is endless until Eru decides to bring about the End of Arda, as these people will continue to struggle and suffer against the evil which Eru allowed to enter into their world.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

Frodo is destroyed because of Eru's choice - in other words, Frodo has to put right what Eru permitted.

And if Eru had not permitted it, none of the inhabitants of Arda would have been free agents. So we are left condemning Eru either for permitting free will, or allowing evil. We can't have it both ways. This has turned into a revisitation of another thread's discussion about a year or so ago. Remember it?

[davem]

Originally Posted by LMP

And if Eru had not permitted it, none of the inhabitants of Arda would have been free agents. So we are left condemning Eru either for permitting free will, or allowing evil. We can't have it both ways. This has turned into a revisitation of another thread's discussion about a year or so ago. Remember it?

Fine - but why should Frodo have to suffer & lose his life because of Eru's choice to permit freewill - wouldn't the more 'moral' action on Eru's part have been to suffer himself, rather than choose Frodo to go through it?

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by davem

Fine - but why should Frodo have to suffer & lose his life because of Eru's choice to permit freewill - wouldn't the more 'moral' action on Eru's part have been to suffer himself, rather than choose Frodo to go through it?

Perhaps there's simply more to it than we are supposed to understand. If Eru is God, and God is inconceivable, than how presumptuous are we to assume that we know all that's going on?

[Kuruharan]

Frodo...lose his life

Beg pardon? Frodo lost his life?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

Beg pardon? Frodo lost his life?

He lost his life - I specifically avoided saying he died...

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by davem

Fine - but why should Frodo have to suffer & lose his life because of Eru's choice to permit freewill - wouldn't the more 'moral' action on Eru's part have been to suffer himself, rather than choose Frodo to go through it?

If suffering is the only consideration, then maybe. But if development of the soul, and growth of the spirit is the goal, then suffering is part of the process. We dodge suffering, as humans, and we hate it, but it creates something that rose petals and an easy life cannot.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

We dodge suffering, as humans, and we hate it, but it creates something that rose petals and an easy life cannot.

But why should some have to suffer, or suffer more, than others? Because they are more in need of spiritual development? Why was Frodo chosen for the Quest and not Merry or Pippin, or Rosie Cotton? Why should children have to suffer before they have had a chance to grow physically and mentally, let alone spritually?

I don't buy it. And that's why Eru, for me, is not God.

[Kuruharan]

...and know what I will say, but for clarity I'll ask...

He lost his life - I specifically avoided saying he died
davem

What specifically do you mean by that?

Perhaps we should move this over to the CbC discussion since it will probably heavily relate to it.

We dodge suffering, as humans, and we hate it, but it creates something that rose petals and an easy life cannot.
mark12_30

Yes. Cynicism and bitterness.

Oh, wait, you meant strength of character...oops.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

But why should some have to suffer, or suffer more, than others? Because they are more in need of spiritual development? Why was Frodo chosen for the Quest and not Merry or Pippin, or Rosie Cotton? Why should children have to suffer before they have had a chance to grow physically and mentally, let alone spritually? I don't buy it. And that's why Eru, for me, is not God.

That would take us quite far off topic, I think, so I'll keep it ultra-brief. Too brief.

One: Suffering can be a free-will offering, as Sharon has described. That's one reason for it.

Two: The other 'reason' for suffering is somebody else's sin-- for instance, Hitler's sin caused a lot of suffering. Likewise, Sauron's sin caused a lot of suffering. Hence the commands not to sin.

At which point the question arises, why did God allow Hitler to do what he did, and why did Eru allow Sauron to do what he did?? Bottom line: free will is truly free. Man is free to be a monster if he so chooses, and monsters cause suffering. If we go against Eru the music is nasty. He works it all towards a good end, but it's nasty nonetheless.

I think no matter how many times we go around on this, Sharon's and my opinions will differ significantly from yours, Saucie.....

Cheers.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

But why should some have to suffer, or suffer more, than others? Because they are more in need of spiritual development? Why was Frodo chosen for the Quest and not Merry or Pippin, or Rosie Cotton? Why should children have to suffer before they have had a chance to grow physically and mentally, let alone spritually?

I don't buy it. And that's why Eru, for me, is not God.

If that makes you believe that Eru is not God, then clearly God as defined by most Christians (and Jews) is not someone that you believe in.

As noted by Mark/Helen, the very things here that seem so incomprehensible in an Eru based on a God of Christian morals are the very same things that occur in our own world that cause so many people to wonder at the existence of God.

So, whether or not you do in fact believe in a real God, this ought to be another proof that Eru is God.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

The other 'reason' for suffering is somebody else's sin-- for instance, Hitler's sin caused a lot of suffering. Likewise, Sauron's sin caused a lot of suffering. Hence the commands not to sin.

... and "Acts of God"?

But you are right. This takes us off topic (albeit by an interesting route). My point was merely to illustrate the point that Formendacil has picked up on.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

If that makes you believe that Eru is not God, then clearly God as defined by most Christians (and Jews) is not someone that you believe in.

Bingo!

Originally Posted by Formendacil

So, whether or not you do in fact believe in a real God, this ought to be another proof that Eru is God.

No. That does not follow. I accept that Eru is Tolkien's God. I also accept from what you say that he is your God. But, to me, Eru is not God.

[littlemanpoet]

Would you change your vote, having read the discussion to this point?

Yes _______

No_______

If yes, What changed your mind?

[Roa_Aoife]

I would still be voting yes, LMP.

But I'd like to point out that we seem to be discussing our individual veiws of God, rather than Tolkien's veiw of Eru. Or does that just go back to the "C" thread....

[alatar]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

One: Suffering can be a free-will offering, as Sharon has described. That's one reason for it.

Two: The other 'reason' for suffering is somebody else's sin-- for instance, Hitler's sin caused a lot of suffering. Likewise, Sauron's sin caused a lot of suffering. Hence the commands not to sin.

Thought that this was interesting.

And it's obviously personal bias, but I find Eru a bit less harsh than the Christian God (not offense meant). That may be due to the actually BC interventions, or the language that is used in the Old Testament regarding the plans and thoughts of Jehovah. Eru doesn't intervene directly, and most of the work is done by the Ainur, and so I guess that he's a bit more palatable.