Is Eru 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.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

... to find an appropriate word in the Elvish language which was similar, but it does not mean that the two concepts/beings are the same thing.

Precisely! Well-said, and your post hints at a slight difference ( ) in viewpoints between you and another person nearby. Stick to it!

Saucy, your precise and concise summary of the possibilities hits the nail on the head. I agree completely, though I suspect we aren't coming at the conclusions from the same point of view.

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

I do think that Tolkien meant Iluvatar to be a picture of the God he worships. The very same Being? Well, yes.

LMP, though we are approaching this question from a similar point of view, we come to opposite conclusions! The question Fordim asked is not whether Tolkien considers Eru and God to be the same, but whether it is my (and your) opinion. I know Tolkien set Middle-earth up to be our Earth in a previous history, but he realized that it was an alternate pre-history. If we take Eru to be identical with the creator God of our earth, then the story of creation (with Adam and Eve being the parents of all living) which is so central to his identity does not fit.

The mythology of Middle-earth is a lovely alternative, taking some variant points of view into consideration (such as making the Valar include elements of both pagan Gods and Judeo/Christian angels), but it cannot fit into Jewish and Christian theology. It is fiction and I enjoy it very much, but I do not attempt to reconcile it with my real life belief.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Fordim

And I note that you've refused to vote.

How can I vote when you have not sufficiently explained which question I am answering?

[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

[Thinlómien]

It seems that the no-party are louder and better and longer-worded in their theories. I just wonder where are all the yes-people, since it's now 10-10 and most of the posts on this thread are by no-people.

I myself voted for "yes" without thinking so much about it, but now some of you (lmp, Lalwendë, Estelyn etc.) have made me think more about the issue. Advise: never vote in a BD poll without thinking the thing from as many aspects as you can . Anyway, I'd probably still say "yes", because I think the question as "Did Tolkien mean Eru to be God?" Of course we can debate endlessly only about the meaning of the question, but since Fordim refuses to explain the question, we must interpret it as we want to, or so says my logic...

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Estelyn Telcontar

LMP, though we are approaching this question from a similar point of view, we come to opposite conclusions! The question Fordim asked is not whether Tolkien considers Eru and God to be the same, but whether it is my (and your) opinion. I know Tolkien set Middle-earth up to be our Earth in a previous history, but he realized that it was an alternate pre-history. If we take Eru to be identical with the creator God of our earth, then the story of creation (with Adam and Eve being the parents of all living) which is so central to his identity does not fit.

The mythology of Middle-earth is a lovely alternative, taking some variant points of view into consideration (such as making the Valar include elements of both pagan Gods and Judeo/Christian angels), but it cannot fit into Jewish and Christian theology. It is fiction and I enjoy it very much, but I do not attempt to reconcile it with my real life belief.

My answer remains "yes" - to both aspects of the question: Tolkien meant it, and it is so. The myths are not mutually exclusive, but tell different stories about different peoples. Even if Tolkien did not mean it, it still is so. The Spirit and Truth shine through, and most of us perceive it. We may call it other things because of whatever reasons, but it still is what it is.

Originally Posted by fordim

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.

Well, yes, since I believe that to say Christian is to say Truthian, because according to my belief, He is the Truth; all Truth originates with Him. Tolkien's Eru shines through as Him. But I still hold that it's an incomplete view, coming from a myth by "people" who knew very little. Still, what is known, rings True.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Ah, and so as always we end up discussing the question the poll is asking rather than debating an answer to it. We could set up our own parliamentary democracy! (I call the Speaker's Chair!)

At any rate, Esty has already pointed to what I meant with the question: what do you think? If the question were what did Tolkien think the answer would be pretty obviously "yes" -- Tolkien intended Eru to be the Christian God (as Tolkien saw him).

So we once again come to this: which should govern our interpretation -- authorial intent (Tolkien intended Eru to be God, so He is), or personal response (Eru doesn't seem like God to me, so he is not). And as always, I am caught somewhere in between.... Insofar as Tolkien clearly created Eru as an image of God, and inasmuch as M-E seems to run according to fairly strictly laid out Christian morality (as interpreted by Tolkien) then I would go for the yes side. But, insofar as Eru does not reflect my own view of what God is or may be, and inasmuch as I interpret the moral vision of Middle-Earth as reflecting some fairly pre-Christian notions of honour and doom (OE dom) then I would like to answer no.

So to Roa and Saucy, who are both demanding I vote (quite justly) I will only say that I think I need to read some more responses and arguments before I can decide. Why do you think I start these polls? I genuinely want to see what people have to say to help me figure out where I stand...

...well, except for that whole Balrog-wings thing. They clearly have them and they clearly work, no need for discussion. Oh, and Elves' ears -- they're not pointy.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

At any rate, Esty has already pointed to what I meant with the question: what do you think?

Ah, well... if that's the question, then you've forgotten the agnostically cheerful third answer: "It makes no difference whether he is or isn't."

Seriously though, you pose a tough question. If you were to ask "Is that flower pink?" you could look at it and say "Why certainly, and a lovelier shade of whitish-red I've never seen." (note that this question does not work on blind men) But the question you ask, Professor Hedgethistle, is more along the lines of "Is that small Irish man clad all in green with a shillelagh in his hand and a wee pile of gold in his pocket a leprechaun?" In order to answer that, you must first contemplate "Well... are leprechauns real?" You know that the little Irishman is there, just as we have Eru to work with. The problem is trying to correlate what you've got to what you aren't entirely sure about. Do you see the dilemma?

So if you were saying "Does Tolkien think that Eru's God?" I'd say "I think so, yeah." But since you're asking me, I have to put forth the point that well... perhaps both Eru and God are fictional creations/projections, so maybe they are the same. Then again, maybe I'm as blind as the man who can't see pink.

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by Feanor of the Peredhil

Ah, well... if that's the question, then you've forgotten the agnostically cheerful third answer: "It makes no difference whether he is or isn't."

Seriously though, you pose a tough question. If you were to ask "Is that flower pink?" you could look at it and say "Why certainly, and a lovelier shade of whitish-red I've never seen." (note that this question does not work on a blind men) But the question you ask, Professor Hedgethistle, is more along the lines of "Is that small Irish man clad all in green with a shillelagh in his hand and a wee pile of gold in his pocket a leprechaun?" In order to answer that, you must first contemplate "Well... are leprechauns real?" You know that the little Irishman is there, just as we have Eru to work with. The problem is trying to correlate what you've got to what you aren't entirely sure about. Do you see the dilemma?

So if you were saying "Does Tolkien think that Eru's God?" I'd say "I think so, yeah." But since you're asking me, I have to put forth the point that well... perhaps both Eru and God are fictional creations/projections, so maybe they are the same. Then again, maybe I'm as blind as the man who can't see pink.

Fea is making sense and is thinking along the same lines with me, but she has just figured out farther the thing than I have. I agree with her.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Fea

In order to answer that, you must first contemplate "Well... are leprechauns real?"

Superbly put, Fea, if I may say so. Now that Fordim has clarified the question, I am sorely tempted to plead agnosticism, follow Fea's lead and answer with a resounding "don't know".

But, since Fordim has already implicitly accused me of fence-sitting (unreasonably, in my view, as I was simply seeking to determine the nature of the question that I was being asked to answer ), I dare not risk further such lawyer-baiting taunts.

The fact that Tolkien most likely intended Eru to represent his God, or rather an aspect of his God, is irrelevant as far as I am concerned since I have complete freedom to interpret the relevance and applicability of Eru to me. And, since aspects of Eru (like, I might add, some aspects of God in our world as presented by a number of faiths) are at odds with my conception of God (assuming that he exists), then I will have to answer the question, as originally posed and subsequently clarified, in the negative.

Originally Posted by lmp

Even if Tolkien did not mean it, it still is so. The Spirit and Truth shine through, and most of us perceive it.

Holy Moley! It's the return of the dreaded Capitals!! And also precisely the kind of implication that provoked many a post from me on the dreaded C-thread, namely that only those of us who see and understand the "Truth" can properly appreciate LotR.

But I shall let it pass.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

I have complete freedom to interpret the relevance and applicability of Eru to me.

Well sure you can interpret however you want. As long as you don't assume that you're right. But that's an arguement for the non-existant "What literary theory should be used in studying Tolkien's work?" thread. Mwahahaha.

That's another comment I have: Fordim, you realize that all of our answers, besides having different concepts of "God" behind them, will be coming from people who side very strongly with certain critical theories, whether they know it or not? It's already been nudged at on this thread: the way people believe that literature should be interpreted is going to have a big effect on whether or not they think that ME's god is "our" God.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Fea

Well sure you can interpret however you want. As long as you don't assume that you're right.

Eh? Are you suggesting that I am not able to make a correct evaluation of the applicability of a text, or a character in it, to my own life?

Oops. Two cans of worms, having been duly opened by lmp and Fea, are liberally emptied all over the thread by Sauce ...

[Mister Underhill]

Non-existent? Fea, you've clearly overlooked the infamous Canonicity thread -- all fifteen pages of it. Mwahahaha indeed.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

Non-existent? Fea, you've clearly overlooked the infamous Canonicity thread -- all fifteen pages of it. Mwahahaha indeed.

Not overlooking, ignoring. I'll admit to having only caught parts of the argument (I knew it would suck me in, so I avoided it, much like Odysseus and Charybdis ), but I'm talking all schools of thought. Though perhaps I did totally miss more of the discussion than I thought I did.

EDIT: looks like I've got me some reading to do. Good thing I finished my homework already.

EDIT #2:

Originally Posted by Man of Pansaucia

Eh? Are you suggesting that I am not able to make a correct evaluation of the applicability of a text, or a character in it, to my own life?

Please note this guy:

[Folwren]

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

So we once again come to this: which should govern our interpretation -- authorial intent (Tolkien intended Eru to be God, so He is), or personal response (Eru doesn't seem like God to me, so he is not). And as always, I am caught somewhere in between.... Insofar as Tolkien clearly created Eru as an image of God, and inasmuch as M-E seems to run according to fairly strictly laid out Christian morality (as interpreted by Tolkien) then I would go for the yes side. But, insofar as Eru does not reflect my own view of what God is or may be, and inasmuch as I interpret the moral vision of Middle-Earth as reflecting some fairly pre-Christian notions of honour and doom (OE dom) then I would like to answer no.

Great Heavens above! If Eru is Tolkien's picture and understanding of God, then I'll be blowed! I don't know what the Catholic religion is, but I hope to goodness that they don't picture God as quite THAT far off.

Are people here sure that's what Tolkien meant Eru to be? Are you positive that it is a direct parralel, as well as he could make it? I'm not so certain. Anyone in the Christain faith knows that God's greatest thing was to send Jesus to earth and do the most difficult thing in the world for us measly human beings. But Tolkien wrote about Frodo Baggins, a tiny, poor, bewildered hobbit take the burden most of the way - and then even fail in the end. Eru let it happen like that. He didn't send his own son to do it, which he might've had it been a direct comparison.

You want a god of an invented world who's meant to be God, read C.S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia. (The Sacrifice is both in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe and in The Silver Chair.

I'm sure many of us have invented worlds of our own and written about them, right? Well, recently, I've been running into problems. I need a god who can over look things so that everything doesn't run wild and go by chance and so that people actually have something to look up to when they're run down and completely broken by the cruel course of life. I don't want to write about a god who is actually God because that would be taking the assumption that I knew enough about God to actually write a fiction like that. Of course, if I should ever decide to put a god in, I'm going to fashion him after God, but I'll never try to claim or to write him as though he were God. I'm thinking that's more what Tolkien did. He's made very stark differences between God and Eru. . .I don't think he would have done that if he had wanted Eru to be God.

Of course truths are going to show through Tolkien's work. It's impossible to avoid that. But he didn't like allegories, so he's not going to write one!

-- Folwren

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Fea

Please note this guy:

Actually, I wilfully ignored him (as you did the C-thread ) because you had the germ of a valid point. A person might very well be incapable of consciously recognising the applicability of something to him- or herself. Or they may (consciously or subconsciously) be unwilling to do so ...

... but that's for another thread.

*One can of worms duly filled and sealed tight*

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Folwren

Great Heavens above! If Eru is Tolkien's picture and understanding of God, then I'll be blowed! I don't know what the Catholic religion is, but I hope to goodness that they don't picture God as quite THAT far off.

We do. Or we don't.

I guess it depends on how you think Eru REALLY works in Middle-Earth, and on how God really works in Real life.

Are people here sure that's what Tolkien meant Eru to be? Are you positive that it is a direct parralel, as well as he could make it? I'm not so certain. Anyone in the Christain faith knows that God's greatest thing was to send Jesus to earth and do the most difficult thing in the world for us measly human beings. But Tolkien wrote about Frodo Baggins, a tiny, poor, bewildered hobbit take the burden most of the way - and then even fail in the end. Eru let it happen like that. He didn't send his own son to do it, which he might've had it been a direct comparison.

Ah, but this is intended to be the history of the real world well BEFORE Jesus came to die for us- saving us from a much worse fate than Sauron could have inflicted.

Furthermore, as regards Frodo, yes he was given a very heavy burden. We are all given heavy burdens.

Fail in the end? Of course Frodo failed. Catholicism teaches that we are all imperfect, flawed beings. However, you will note that his QUEST succeeded. The Ring was destroyed.

Divine intervention?

You decide. The results are the same.

Finally, Frodo did receive his reward. And in this life even.

I'm thinking that's more what Tolkien did. He's made very stark differences between God and Eru. . .I don't think he would have done that if he had wanted Eru to be God.

You're thinking? Who are you to know what Tolkien was doing?

I'm don't intend any offence or sarcasm by this, but I am literally asking: how can we know WHAT Tolkien intended unless we go by what he wrote. And what he wrote says that the Lord of the Rings is a fundamentally Catholic work. It's God, therefore, must be a fundamentally Catholic God.

Furthermore, as regards "stark differences" between Eru and God, I am inclined to disagree. I do not think that Eru is nearly as cold or distant as you think, although I will agree that He is not SHOWN as a major player in the books- much the way God is not shown as a major player in the history books, although that does not mean that He was not present.

Any other differences between God and Eru can be put down to YOUR conception of God conflicting with TOLKIEN's conception of God. No one on this earth can truly KNOW God in His entirety, or even incompletely. Therefore, any presentation of God, be it in art, literature, or whatnot, can only be the presentation of what ONE PERSON knows of God.

But he didn't like allegories, so he's not going to write one!

It's not an allegory. There is no single, blatant, behind-the-scenes message. It is, first and foremost, a contrived history of Europe.

And, if it is to be "real and true" history, it must contain the "real and true" God.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

And, if it is to be "real and true" history, it must contain the "real and true" God.

Yeah, but who gets to decide who the "real and true" God is? That in itself is a pretty hefty problem, no?

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

But, since Fordim has already implicitly accused me of fence-sitting (unreasonably, in my view, as I was simply seeking to determine the nature of the question that I was being asked to answer ), I dare not risk further such lawyer-baiting taunts.

I didn't accuse you of fence-sitting but of being a solicitor. But don't get me wrong, I love lawyers. I even married a lawyer.

As to Eru-as-Tolkien's-God...if you want to see where he got Him just have a read through Beowulf. Squatter would be able to explain this much better (and in far more informed a fashion) than I, but the God we find in Beowulf is definitely the Christian God, but one who:

a) never seeks a personal relationship with his creation(s),

b) doesn't get directly involved with the battle between good and evil,

c) stands by and allows the most horrific monsters to ravage the land,

d) stands by as the people who destroy those monsters are themselves destroyed by the task,

e) nobody prays to or worships in a church, but everybody sings about and praises with their bards, and

f) is embraced by a culture and a people who believe whole-heartedly that the real meaning of life is found in the acts we do while alive, not where we go when we die, and that honour (how one is spoken of by others) is more important than conscience (how one thinks of oneself).

That's why I have no problem seeing Eru as Tolkien's version of God. This might also explain why Tolkien had a particular love for Mary (as did many people in the "Dark Ages"), insofar as she provides a much more merciful and personal, even human, presence than God: the "world-cyning of Middeneard" (my spelling is all off there -- where is Squatter?)

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Feanor of the Peredhil

Yeah, but who gets to decide who the "real and true" God is? That in itself is a pretty hefty problem, no?

As I already said, no one can KNOW God fully.

However, if they know God at all, then surely they have to reconcile their knowledge of Him with the way He is presented in the Old Testament, right?

Well, if you accept that the God of the Old Testament is the God of today, then how hard is it to accept the "God of Middle-Earth" as the God of today?

[Gothmog]

SpM:

Holy Moley! It's the return of the dreaded Capitals!!

I can't ignore this opportunity to use a quote that was supposed to be in my next sig:

Capital letters were always the best way of dealing with things you didn't have a good answer to.

~Douglas Adams.

It's so true! Just look at the title of this thread; Is Eru God? And do we have a good answer? No!

Back to the Question As some of us interpret Fordim's question as what Tokien meant Eru to be, I believe that question can not be answered by us. As Formendacil said, who are we to know what Tolkien was doing? Therefor that question is quite meaningless to me. The question what do you think Tolkien meant or or do you think Eru is God is the only questions we can answer, and that's up to each and everybody.

I doesn't matter how many differences or similarities we find between Illuvatar and the Christian God. We can't decide what Tolkien intended them to mean, if it meant anything. The fact that God inspired the creation of Eru is obvious, but where the limit of inspirated by and being God is drawn is quite diffuse.

And we must remember that what Prof. T tried to create was not a historical document but a mythology. If we say that Eru is God, is Zeus God? Or Odin? I know there's a difference as Eru is a god from fiction, but he was still supposed to be a god of an alternative mythology.

To go in on details in the behaviour or apperance of God and Eru is, according to me, wrong in discussing this question. There will always be similarities and differences. It's better to look at it from a wider perspective, not compare them act by act. And overall, there's a lot of thing alike for the two, but that's only natural. To say that they're the same because of that is impossible. And to say that Tolkien must have created Eru as the image of God just because of his own religious believes is a questionable reasoning. I bet there's a lot of christian writers out there who has created gods that do not resemble God. Folwren described his problems of creating a god that was not God in his post, but still he wants someone like him. God is our view of a good God of obvious reasons and when trying to create a good god, he ends up as something not to far away from our own. That, I believe, was the case in Tokien's god.

Fordim:

That's why I have no problem seeing Eru as Tolkien's version of God

Does that make him God? Again, that depends on the question. And is he Tolkien's version of God or a good god in general?

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Holy Moley! It's the return of the dreaded Capitals!! And also precisely the kind of implication that provoked many a post from me on the dreaded C-thread, namely that only those of us who see and understand the "Truth" can properly appreciate LotR.

But I shall let it pass.

Ah, but I was very careful to avoid that implication:

Originally Posted by me

The Spirit and Truth shine through, and most of us perceive it. We may call it other things because of whatever reasons, but it still is what it is.

Had I intended to imply that only the Few can perceive it, I would have said that more specifically, and I would have been wrong.

[Thenamir]

As I have voted, I see now that it is incumbent upon me to defend that vote. And as most of you know I have never been able to shy away from a debate that has a hint of religion in it. :P

Although I find Estelyn’s points well made, I must politely disagree with her conclusion. I have always thought of the God of Middle-Earth as being a reasonable representation of the God Who Is. I base most of that thought on the words of Eru at the beginning of The Silmarillion, where He states (in my own paraphrase) that He is the ultimate Author of the Theme and the Music whence Ea sprang, and that none could alter that music in despite of Him – that those who attempt to do so will only find themselves the instruments of Eru in creating yet greater things which the errant creature had not intended.

Additionally, I do not find the presence of Eru in Arda to be so far off as some describe. It is apparent that the hand of the Creator in Middle Earth, as in our real world, is ever-present and guiding events so that good eventually triumphs over evil, even though we may not see that Hand except in retrospect. I find it in the statement of Gandalf (himself an emissary) to Bilbo at the end of The Hobbit that his adventures were not solely for his benefit, that he is only a small hobbit in a very large world. I find it in the existence of predictive prophecy in some places (e.g. Malbeth the seer, Galadriel, others). I find it in the use of a good-hearted but weakened Frodo and a deranged and self-consumed Gollum in combination to be the destruction of the great evil of their day. It all sounds so, if you will, like God, like something He would arrange.

Just as in our real world we do not see overt and obvious miracles taking place everywhere, so it is in Middle-Earth -- even the wizard Gandalf seems to rely mostly on his great wisdom and not on supernatural power. In both worlds the Power that rules over creation uses people, imperfect, unlikely people, to accomplish His ends. Though He is not oft mentioned in Middle Earth, perhaps it is because all consciously or unconsciously recognize His presence and His working – it is understood by all and therefore there is no need to make constant reference to it, like the air we breathe – it’s a given. Though there are those like Melkor/Morgoth or Lucifer/Satan who attempt to overthrow or thwart His purposes, it is in both worlds a vain effort.

Though my post is not as scholarly as some, it is my opinion, and having held that opinion has increased my enjoyment of LOTR immensely. I may not change any minds – it is, after all, one small voice, and one man’s opinion

[Gurthang]

Originally Posted by Gothmog

To go in on details in the behaviour or apperance of God and Eru is, according to me, wrong in discussing this question. There will always be similarities and differences. It's better to look at it from a wider perspective, not compare them act by act. And overall, there's a lot of thing alike for the two, but that's only natural. To say that they're the same because of that is impossible.

Exactly. If you say that Eru is God, then they will be alike in every single aspect. Meaning that just one difference eleminates the equality and makes Eru not God.

But, on the same note, I believe that Eru is like God. When I think about what Eru does, I am thinking of what God would do. So they are very similar in many respects, but the fact that they are different in even the minutest detail makes the answer no.

I don't know if I explained that very well.
Eru is God: Impossible.
Eru is like God: Definite.

Originally Posted by Gothmog

It's so true! Just look at the title of this thread; Is Eru God? And do we have a good answer? No!

That's absolutely correct. Ask the question 'Is Eru god?' and the answer is simple. Ask the question 'Is Eru God?' and you'll start a discussion that will reach 50 responses in 28 hours.

[Folwren]

Formendacil, before I answer your smashing post in reply to my post, I have to ask you, and the other people who know the answer, a question.

You said, and I'll fetch is so we all know what I'm talking about:

Ah, but this is intended to be the history of the real world well BEFORE Jesus came to die for us- saving us from a much worse fate than Sauron could have inflicted.

Do you mean this literally, or that Tolkien wrote about M-E so that (this is what I've heard in the past) Brittain and the United Kingdoms could have a mythological backround, kind of like Rome and Greece did with all their gods and the like. I've always understood it to be myth. I'll be able to address some things clearly if it's established that it's supposed to be myth, and therefore, yes, before Christ came.

As for your

Any other differences between God and Eru can be put down to YOUR conception of God conflicting with TOLKIEN's conception of God. No one on this earth can truly KNOW God in His entirety, or even incompletely. Therefore, any presentation of God, be it in art, literature, or whatnot, can only be the presentation of what ONE PERSON knows of God.

No. No one can know God in his entirety, but we can know about him, and we can learn his ways. We can consider and ponder on his character and come up with a lot of really good conclusions from reading the Bible and looking around us, and it will show us a lot about him. We can never know him entirely, but that doesn't mean we can't know him. Don't tell me I can't truly know God, and love Him at that.

Anyway, to get back on track - once I get an answer to this Mythology question, or whatever you want to call it, I'll have something more to say on the actual question of whether Eru is God or not.

-- Folwren

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Originally Posted by Gurthang

Ask the question 'Is Eru god?' and the answer is simple. Ask the question 'Is Eru God?' and you'll start a discussion that will reach 50 responses in 28 hours.

[alatar]

Love threads like this; a joy to read and by gosh even makes me think!

Tolkien may have patterned Eru after his knowledge and understanding of the Catholic God, yet to say that Eru is the God of Adam, Noah and Moses is a bit of a reach. Even when imagining that the Sil and LotR are history, I have a hard time reconciling Eru with the God of the Old Testament. As an example. the Ainur and Maiar aren't angels but more like relatives - cousins. Now think about it. Unless you misinterpret Genesis 6:1-4, angels do not have offspring with humans. Melian and Thingol's daughter marries Beren.

And there are some Christians that believe in a preAdamic race of humans that were before the Fall. Are the peoples of ME these people? Or all they all post-Adam? I have a tough time reconciling either.

Anyway, not to offend, but my point is that if you label Eru as Christian, then you have to buy the whole meal, not just sample from the buffet and call it dinner.

[davem]

I think its clear that Tolkien did not distinguish between Eru & God. The fact that he translated the prayers that were most significant to him into his own languages (Our Father, Ave Maria, Litany of Loreto, etc) points towards this, & many of the comments he makes in the notes to the Athrabeth confirm it.

Nevertheless, Eru is a character in the Legendarium, so its valid to question how close Eru is to God. Tolkien's own theology was perhaps slightly 'idiosyncratic' - or at least had a strongly 19th century feel to it, which many modern Christians may not agree with entirely.

The problem with the way the poll is phrased is that it doesn't distnguish as to whether we are being asked what Tolkien intended or what out own opinion is. What Tolkien intended is not open to opinion - he intended what he intended & nothing else. What we feel is nothing but personal opinion & I don't see what we gain in terms of our knowledge of Tolkien's creation by stating our personal beliefs.

EDIT

As we know, the languages came first & the stories were created to provide a setting for them. Therefore the languages have primacy. If Tolkien translated various Christian prayers into Elvish are they part of the Legendarium? Was this an attempt by Tolkien to integrate his Christianity into his mythology? I don't think we can dismiss what he did as merely an accademic exercise (translating primary world texts into Elvish) because of the value & significance those particular prayers had for him: (I've bolded the ones he translated).

Letter 54

'If you don't do so already, make a habit of the praises'. I use them much in (Latin): the Gloria Patri, the Gloria in Excelsis, the Laudate Dominum; the Laudate Pueri Dominum (of which I am especially fond); one of the Sunday psalms; & the Magnificat; also the Litany of Loreto (with the prayer Sub tuum praesidium) if you have these by heart you never need words of joy.'

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by davem

Nevertheless, Eru is a character in the Legendarium, so its valid to question how close Eru is to God.

Halbarad is a character in the Legendarium. He certainly shows God-like tendencies, such as showing up when those he loves most need help and desire it (Passage of the Grey Company), giving up his corporeal life for the sake of good... Is he God too?

[Bergil]

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

But Eru couldn't MAKE Frodo do anything. Hobbits are basically a sub-spicies of Men, and so immune to destiny. frodo and sam got themselves to mordor (unless Legolas played a bigger part then I'm aware of) and Gollum fell off due to his bad luck and idiocy. UNLESS, fate is decided by the Valar or fate is just whats set down at the start and Eru can actually influence everything, but chose to counterract only evil Ainur (similar to the the Valars policy) due to the "unfair advantage".

I, prefer to believe the former for the same reasons that I dislike the idea of fate, I like to believe that one really does his own work, and really averted failure and dislike the idea of being controlled, even by a perfect being (what fate is).

throw some talk around

[davem]

Originally Posted by Feanor of the Peredhil

Halbarad is a character in the Legendarium. He certainly shows God-like tendencies, such as showing up when those he loves most need help and desire it (Passage of the Grey Company), giving up his corporeal life for the sake of good... Is he God too?

Tolkien never says Halbarad is God. In his later writings particularly (cf the Athrabeth) he repeatedly uses Eru/God as interchangeable terms.

I haven't actually come down on one side or the other. I was simply saying that the comparison is a valid one, not that it is correct.

[Folwren]

Originally Posted by Feanor of the Peredhil

Halbarad is a character in the Legendarium. He certainly shows God-like tendencies, such as showing up when those he loves most need help and desire it (Passage of the Grey Company), giving up his corporeal life for the sake of good... Is he God too?

Is this really a time for sarcasm, m'dear?

And won't somebody please answer my question? I'm unable to write anything until I know whether or not he did write it to be a myth. As it is, I won't be posting anything important again until tomorrow evening - at earliest!

-- Folwren

[Gothmog]

alatar:

As an example. the Ainur and Maiar aren't angels but more like relatives - cousins.

A very interesting topic. As I implied in an earlier post, I'd like to know what the Eru=God sayers view of Valar is. Quoting myself:

One thing that I find interesting in the comparing of Eru and God is what that make Valar. Angelic beings you say, but to me Manwe seem to have more power than any archangel of the Christian religion. He's more of a semi-god. M-E is his kingdom, not Eru's domain even if Manwe subordinate to Iluvatar. There's no equivalent in Tolkien's religion.

As alatar expressed so wonderfully; you have to buy the whole meal, not just sample from the buffet and call it dinner.

And to you Folwren: I'm not the right person to answer your question, but I think he meant it to be a mythology of Great Britain. He was somewhat envious of the nordic people and others for their extensive mythology and collection of stories and myths. England has no own mythology. Sure, there's old tales and myths, but they're often not originally english. His "universe" were meant to be the mythology he missed in his own country. That's my opinion...

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by Gothmog

He was somewhat envious of the nordic people and others for their extensive mythology and collection of stories and myths.

A concept that makes me wonder not "Is Eru God?" but "Is Eru Odin?".

For anybody who has read The Saga of the Volsungs, Tolkien borrowed extensively from it, including things like a magic ring that pretty much dooms anybody who comes in contact with it, the return of a king, the slaying of a dragon from a fissure below... Perhaps he also borrowed Odin who was the head honcho, theistically thinking, and who was not at all against occasionally stepping in to balance out fate a bit. Odin broke Sigmund's sword (which was, amazingly enough, reforged), Eru nudged Gollum into the volcano. Not the best comparison, but just a thought that I'd had. Eru would still be a god, he just wouldn't be "The" god.

Originally Posted by Folwren

Is this really a time for sarcasm, m'dear?

Of course it is darling. You wouldn't want to run the risk of people becoming too serious about this, now would you? After all, we are discussing a fictional character created by a mere man.

[Roa_Aoife]

As I said, I refuse to get involved in a religious debate over a work of fiction, but my veiws on the similarity between Eru and God were nicely stated by Thenamir. That being said, I find it irrelevant.

As Fordim clarified:

So we once again come to this: which should govern our interpretation -- authorial intent (Tolkien intended Eru to be God, so He is), or personal response (Eru doesn't seem like God to me, so he is not).

I come from the school of though where interpretation means to find the author's intent. My studies are governed by two rules: "The simplest interpretation is usually the best," and "Take the most literal interpretation possible." It doesn't matter what your views of God are or aren't, and it doesn't matter how accurate Tolkien was in his description. What matters is what he meant it to be. And davem made the excellent point:

I think its clear that Tolkien did not distinguish between Eru & God. The fact that he translated the prayers that were most significant to him into his own languages (Our Father, Ave Maria, Litany of Loreto, etc) points towards this, & many of the comments he makes in the notes to the Athrabeth confirm it.

So, as far as this discussion is concerned, it doesn't really matter what you think about God. It matters what Tolkien thinks. It's his story, after all. He gets to write it however he wants, and we can't change his intended meaning- no matter how much we don't like it.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Roa_Aoife

And davem made the excellent point:

So, as far as this discussion is concerned, it doesn't really matter what you think about God. It matters what Tolkien thinks. It's his story, after all. He gets to write it however he wants, and we can't change his intended meaning- no matter how much we don't like it.

Ah but.... Tolkien can change his intended meaing. One of the great difficulties in ascertaining what Tolkien thinks is determining whether what he thinks at one stage of his life is similar to what he thinks at another stage of his life--or perhaps I should say, stage in his writing career. What he thinks as he writes Athrabeth might not--does not?--necessarily reflect what he thinks when he writes his earlier works. (And, yes, I'm mixing up my verb tenses deliberately.)

The other difficulty lies in deciding what weight to give works unpublished in Tolkien's lifetime.

[Roa_Aoife]

I'm not really an authority on the unpublished works, so I think the question of their importance, again, goes to his intent. Were they unpublished because he didn't want them to be, or because he simply didn't have enough time? If it is the latter, then I think they should carry nearly the same weight of the published.

Also, if LotR was meant as a pre-history for our world, then it would stand to reason that Tolkien would keep at "meshable" with our reality as possible. There was never a stage of his life in which Tolkien wasn't Catholic, believing the Christian God to be part of our reality.

Of course, I'm arguing the supposed intent of a dead man, so this is really just blowing smoke.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by lmp

Had I intended to imply that only the Few can perceive it, I would have said that more specifically, and I would have been wrong.

OK, I shall rephrase the implication which may be validly drawn from your words:

... namely that only those of us who see and understand that which is called by the "Few" the "Truth" but which may be called other things by other people can properly appreciate LotR.

And what's with the Capitalisation of the "Few"?

Dang! This tangent has the capacity to tie me up for weeks. I knew that I should have let it pass ...

Originally Posted by davem

What we feel is nothing but personal opinion & I don't see what we gain in terms of our knowledge of Tolkien's creation by stating our personal beliefs.

Originally Posted by Roa_Aoife

So, as far as this discussion is concerned, it doesn't really matter what you think about God.

But surely it is valid for readers to discuss amongst themselves the applicability to each of them of Tolkien's portrayal of Eru, if they wish to do so. Seeking to determine authorial intention is all very well and a perfectly laudable pursuit, the validity of which I do not dispute. But, if others prefer to explore the applicability of the story to their own lives, and thereby possibly gain greater understanding of themselves and fellow contributors, is that not equally valid?

[Roa_Aoife]

Certainly valid, Saucy, but hardly relevant to the question presented. I simple meant that in the context of the thread, it's meaningless. Such points are really just getting off topic. The question was "Is Eru God?" and the only person who would know for certain is Tolkien himself. Since he can't really answer that for us, we are left to discern what he thought on our own. Application of the text is a different subject altogether.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by Roa_Aoife

Certainly valid, Saucy, but hardly relevant to the question presented. I simple meant that in the context of the thread, it's meaningless. Such points are really just getting off topic. The question was "Is Eru God?" and the only person who would know for certain is Tolkien himself. Since he can't really answer that for us, we are left to discern what he thought on our own. Application of the text is a different subject altogether.

The actual poll may say "Is Eru God?" but Fordim clarified as "Do you personally think that Eru is God?" Given that, the relevence of reader response is that much more important even than Tolkien's opinion. After all, you aren't Tolkien, are you?