Is Eru God?

[Angry Hill Troll]

I voted yes.

I'm a little bit surprised that nobody had yet posted this quote, which I've seen posted on many websites with essays on Tolkien and christianity:

God is the Lord, of angels, and of men-and of elves. Legend and History have met and fused.
--J.R.R. Tolkien, "On Fairy Stories," in The Tolkien Reader

It's getting a little bit late to completely explain my reasoning, but I'm convinced that for Tolkien, Eru=God.

Digressing a little bit, here's a philosophical question to ponder (I don't really have an answer for this one ): If two religions both believe in a single, omnipotent and omniscient God, do they necessarily believe in the same God (with differences of opinion of His characteristics, actions, and expectations of humans), or do they believe in different gods whose existences are mutully exclusive?

This doesn't strictly apply to the poll question, since worship of Eru and reverence for the Valar aren't (to my knowledge) religious practice in our world.

Cheers.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Originally Posted by Angry Hill Troll

I If two religions both believe in a single, omnipotent and omniscient God, do they necessarily believe in the same God (with differences of opinion of His characteristics, actions, and expectations of humans), or do they believe in different gods whose existences are mutully exclusive?

If both "Gods" have the same essential nature, such as the God of Jews and Christians, they are one and the same. If there are characteristics which are not reconcilable, they are not. Since this is not a discussion of the theology of our primary world, I will not carry this answer further. I have named the characteristics of Eru which I feel are incompatible with the Biblical God in my first post on this thread.

As to your quote concerning Tolkien, that is indisputable (well, someone may find something to dispute about it!), but as Fordim has clarified, this thread is indeed about our opinions.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Eru Ilúvatar is not the God of the Christian Bible (nor the Jewish Yahwe of the Old Testament).

Esty -- I would agree with you in this limited sense (as long as we restrict the OT to that period from Avram on, rather than the earliest tales). But why restrict God to these particular points in history? Is he not the same God, even when he is described from another point of view? More precisely Tolkien describes God from the point of view of those individuals who lived before the covenant with Avram or before the gift of the Messiah. What changes is not God but the point of view from which he is seen and understood.

[burrahobbit]

I voted yes for reasons that I feel are very obvious and that have already been brought up. However, I will add that I disagree with the following:

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

There's a lot hanging on this question: if you believe that Eru is God, then you are saying that the moral "rules" of M-E are Christian. If you believe that Eru is not God, then those "rules" are something else.

Middle-Earth is a pre-Christian world. Like the Jews. Jewish moral rules are not Christian moral rules.

Now I'm going to comment on everything else, all at once, and pay absolutely no attention to who is saying anything. Replies will follow quotes. Feel free to sip all of the rest.

From the very beginning, he establishes contact and reveals himself to them (walking with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden).

Granted. However, he also contacts people through angels and the Holy Spirit. One could say that he does all or nearly all of his contacting through angels and the Holy Spirit. That seems fairly analogous with the various Ainur.

I thought that since Tolkien was a christian and he said that ME was the same world we live in, wouldn't it just be logical that the god was same also?

Yes.

Eru at no time seemed much interested in a personal relationship with his creation.

Reminds me of the Catholic idea of praying through saints. Tolkien was one of those, wasn't he?

I'd like to add to, and somewhat reiterate, what she said. First, that Eru does not seek a personal relationship, which is the core of Christian belief.

I would like to iterate, all on my own, that it isn't. You are confusing "What Christians Believe" with "What I Believe." Perhaps it is very important to your particular group of Christians, but there are lots of diffeent groups and they don't all hold t hat bit in quite such high regard.

The main difference then is the fact that God became incarnate and walked among us.

That just hadn't happened yet. The books take place BC. Except for BoLT, sort of.

Eru acts very much how I've always though God would. (except in teh judgment of melkor.)

Howso? The Devil does lots of things that God wants him to, even naughty things. CF. Job.

i guess they can do whatever they want with it (ei. lets make a mountain range here, put some lamps there, etc., as the vision was rather vague

That sounds like things that God's Hands would be doing.

He seems to have been afraid of writing a mischaracterization. I think he wanted the parallel (or maybe "similarity") to be there but didn't want to push it too far.

Excellent point. I don't see that as affecting Eru as God, though. Eru is God, but there is much more of His nature revealed to us in the Bible. The books aren't about him, so they don't go into too much detail. I've read plenty of books about modern people, even modern religious people, and those books don't tell me nearly as much about those people's God as the Bible. Likewise with Tolkien's work.

Chicken.

Don't be a prat, that isn't your job.

God is God and I believe because we cannot know exactly what 'God' is, how can we know if a fictional God is the same?

I listen to this one blues song a lot, I have about sixty versions of it, and I may not know if it is about a real person but I can say with some certainty that Stagger lee is the same guy as Stackalee.

The Legendarium, from the Ainulindale down to the fall of Sauron was intended to be the history of this world, in a somewhat distant time B.C. This same world which, in Tolkien's faith, is under the dominion of God. Therefore, if the world in that time was under the dominion of Eru, then Eru must be God.

Eru and God are intended to be one and the same.

And I personally feel that no amount of "personal opinion" on the matter changes it. If you accept the existence of Frodo, Sam, and Gollum in Middle-Earth, you have to accept the existence of Eru- as the Judeo-Christian God within the story.

Do as you wish in real life, but within the confines of the story you have to, in my opinion, accept Eru, as presented, as God, if you are going to accept it at all.

Yes.

Is the question: do you think that Eru is God? Or is it: do you think Tolkien thought that Eru is God?

Good point. I see them as the same question since we are talking about things that Tolkien wrote. Tolkien's world, Tolkien's rules.

So how do we know whether we are reading the view of the translator or the original writer? And how do we know that the original writer was correct in their view of Eru?

Too meta.

As christian, it's obvious that Tolkien's view of a god is that of the Christian/Jewish(/Muslim/Buddhist etc. as all gods are the same according to many people) and he's been influenced by that of course.

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.

But if you say that Eru is God, you say that Tolkien tried to describe God through Eru Illuvatar

No you don't.

Eru might have become an equivalent to God

You do realize that equivalent means "the same as"? Right? Is equal to?

M-E is his kingdom, not Eru's domain even if Manwe subordinate to Iluvatar. There's no equivalent in Tolkien's religion.

It's like a ven diagram.

Also intersting is Melkor's role as the fallen angel, becoming the Dark Lord. In this case, there's a lot of similarities with Christianity and Satan's fall. He was one of the greatest angel's, one of those with most power and one of those closest to God, but was hungry for more power. Exactly like Melkor. They both fell and became to metaphor of Evil.

That is pretty interesting, isn't it? Pretty interesting indeed.

There's a downloadable issue of Vinyar Tengwar http://www.elvish.org/VT/VT43sample.pdf which contains Tolkien's translations of the Lord's Prayer & the Ave Maria. Tolkien uses 'Eru' to translate 'God'.

For what its worth - Tolkien seems to have considered the two words equivalent - only really stubborn & awkward people would deny that

+1

Stubborn and awkward it may be, but this only proves that Tolkien used that word in this linguistic experiment as it was as close as he could get in the Elvish language.

The whole thing is a linguistic experiment. He made the world for his language, not the other way around.

Is the character of "Deep Throat" from All the President's Men W. Mark Felt?

Ooo, that one is much better than what I came up with. Good form.

Done now, might come back later.

[The Saucepan Man]

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.

Fea and Esty have already made the point, but just to reiterate the clarification which I extracted from Fordim:

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

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).

Originally Posted by burrahobbit

I see them as the same question since we are talking about things that Tolkien wrote. Tolkien's world, Tolkien's rules.

I would disagree. The reader can, of course, interpret Eru on the basis of presumed authorial intention, but he or she is not inevitably bound (by the text or otherwise) to do so. A Muslim reader, for example, may well interpret Eru as Allah regardless of Tolkien's intentions and imply into Eru's character aspects of that God. Similarly, an Atheist reader, or one who has no strong religious convictions, is likely to view Eru as a purely fictional character, just like the other characters, with no equivalent in reality and interpret him solely on the basis of the material presented in the text. Neither, objectively, is wrong to do so. Why should "Tolkien's rules" bind the reader when they have no direct bearing on the story?

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

I votet NO

Now I could give you a long explanation to why, but the previus posts seems to cover most of what I would have said.

This is the only thing I would like to add:

In Tolkiens world some of the valar has the abilety to create life! This is a very big diversion frome the christian god, (assuming it is this god we are talking about) as he alone could create. If I remember correctly Eru is not allgood and that kind of stuff, this means that he; unlike the christian god he is not one big self-contradiction. . .

Maybe Tolkien decidet to improve god in his books like he improved old tales and plays.

I apologies if this has allready been statet.

[davem]

Some quotes from Tolkien & the Great War (from a post of mine on the Canonicity thread:

On to the TCBSfrom Tolkien & the Great War)

(p14)Tolkien once compared the TCBS to the pre-Raphaelites, probably in response to the Brotherhood's preoccupation with restoring Medieval values in Art.

(p56) Tolkien maintained that the society was 'a great idea which has never become quite articulate'. Its two poles, the moral & the aesthetic, could be complemantary if kept in balance...While the Great Twin Brethren (Tolkien & Wiseman) had discussed the fundamentals of existence, neither of them had done so with Gilson or Smith. As a result, Tolkien declared, the potential these four 'amazing' individuals contained in combination remained unbroached.'

(p105) Gilson proposed that feminism would help by banishing the view that 'woman was just an apparatus for man's pleasure'

Smith declared that, through Art, the four would have to leave the world better than they had found it. Their role would be ' to drive from life, letters, the satge & society that dabbling in & hankering after the unpleasant sides & incidents in life & nature which have captured the larger & worser tastes in Oxford, London & the world ... To re-establish sanity, cleanliness, & the love of real & true beauty in everyone's breast.

Gilson told Tolkien that, sitting in Routh Road... 'I suddenly saw the TCBS in a blaze of Light as a great Moral reformer ...Engalnd purified of its loathsome moral disease by the TCBS spirit. It is an enormous task & we shall not see it accomplished in our lifetime.

(p 122) Rob Gilson: I like to say & to hear it said & to feel boldly that the glory of beauty & order & joyful contentment in the universe is the presence of God....GB Smith was closely attentive to Tolkien's vision & in some measure shared it....Smith saw no demarcation between holiness & Faerie.

(p136) TCBSianism had come to mean fortitude & courage & alliance. ...But the TCBS had absorbed patriotic duty into its constitution not simply because its members were all patriots. the war mattered because it was being fought 'so England's self draw breath'; so that the inspirations of 'the real days' of peace might survive'...

Gilson: 'I have faith taht the TCBS may for itself - never for the world - thank God for this war some day.

Tolkien already believed that the terrros to come might serve him in the visionary work of his life - if he survived.

(p174) Tolkien: 'Regarding, presumably, those same 'idle chatterers', the journalists& their readers whom Smith execrated, he wrote that 'No filter of true sentiment, no ray of feeling for beauty, women, history or their country shall reach them again.'

(p180) Smith (after Rob Gilson's death in battle) 'The group was spiritual in character, 'an influence on the state of being', & as such it transcended mortality; it was 'as permanently inseperable as Thor & his hammer'. the influence, he said, was, 'a tradition, which forty years from now will still be as strong to us (if we are alive, & if we are not) as it is today.

(Tolkien) 'the TCBS may have been all we dreamt - & its work in the end be done by three or two or one survivor ... To this I now pin my hopes..'

(p253) Smith had wanted them to leave the world a better place than when they found it, to 're-establish sanity, cleanliness, & the love of real & true beauty' through art embodying TCBSian principles.

(p308) 'The 24 year old Tolkien had believed just as strongly in the dream shared by the TCBS, & felt that they 'had been granted some spark of fire ... that was destined to kindle a new light, or, what is the same thing, rekindle an old light in the world

(p309) But The Lord of the Rings, the masterpiece that was published a decade & a half later, stands as the fruition of the TCBSian dream, a light drawn from ancient sources to illumnate a darkening world'.

So right from the start of the Lost Tales, Tolkien is attempting to cast the TCBSian philosophy into artistic form. It culminates in the publication of LotR - at least during his lifetime. So, its not, or was never intended to be, simply a story. Its not an allegory in the strict sense, but the Legendarium could be seen as a mythologisation of TCBSianism vs the 'world'.

If there is an underlying 'truth' it is perhaps the 'truth' that the TCBS believed in - & so we're back to the question of what 'truth' Tolkien is revealing to us in his works - some kind of 'absolute', archetypal TRUTH, or simply what he felt to be true about the world, & we have to ask ourselves how close the two are.

Wherever we come down, its clear that whatever he was doing, he was attempting to do more than simply 'entertain' readers, because the TCBS was born in the hearts & minds of idealistic young men in peacetime & blasted apart on the Somme. Tolkien's mythology came into being during the horrors of mechanised warfare. But we enter it (or most of us do) as the TCBS would have originally, & it represents for us, as it would have for them, before the war, as a place of escape, of beauty, excitement, sadness, so we simply cannot read it as Tolkien would have read it himself when he came back to it to comment on its meaning for him. For us, it will have no 'meaning' beyond itself, & wahtever meaning we find in it for ourselves & our lives in this world, they will not, cannot, be the same as they were for Tolkien, so, our interpretations of it are as valid as his.

Which is not to say that he didn't intend us to find TCBSian values in it, & to find them more attractive than what was on offer in the 'primary world'. So, I'd say the book certainly contains deliberate 'meaning', that there is an intention on Tolkien's part that we should find in it waht he wants us to find, & also that he wants us to agree with him - but we never really could, because we're our own people, living our own lives, with our own experiences which we take to Middle Earth with us, & bring back out transformed.

We also have to be aware that in the early 'Faerie' language, which Tolkien had developed pre-WW1, the Faeries knew of monks & nuns, & had words for the Trinity, etc. Eru (or Enu as he was named then) Illuvatar was the God Tolkien worshipped right from the beginning, because the raison d'etre of the TCBS was the moral regeneration of England not 'entertainment', & that 'moral regeneration' would be achieved by a re-Christianisation of English society.

Of course, it could be argued that Tolkien left that desire behind as he grew older. Perhaps - though the translation of Christian prayers into Elvish calls this into question.

As to whether Tolkien was writing 'mythology': In the letter to Milton Waldman he stated that he had ndesired to write a mythology which he could dedicate to England (Carpenter was the one who started the whole 'mythology for England' idea, giving rise to the theory that Tolkien wanted to replace England's 'lost' mythology. Tolkien's (& by extension the TCBS's) motivation was very different. Replacing a 'lost' mythology is effectively a dead end. Tolkien had a purpose - he intended his 'mythology' to do something, & that 'something' was to 'heal' his country. The TCBS wanted England back in Church. Tolkien required Edith to become a Catholic before he would marry her; he worked hard to get Lewis 'into the fold'. His 'mythology' was intended as 'an (if not the) best introduction to the Mountains'.

Obviously, no-one has to take his writings in that way - he couldn't 'force' his readers, as he 'forced' his future wife, to become Catholics, or even simply Christians. Its clear, though, that he didn't think he was writing a mere fantasy.

Eru, for Tolkien was 'God' - though perhaps a 'God' that many would be uncomfortable with. GB Smith, after Rob Gilson's death, wrote a poem. Some lines, given by John Garth, sum up the TCBS-ite concept of God:

'Gilson's death is a 'sacrifice of blood outpoured' to a God whose purposes are utterly inscrutable & who 'only canst be glorified / By man's own passion & the supreme pain'.

I'd say that's Eru, not only the God Tolkien created for Middle-earth, but also the one he believed in. Then again, what other God could he have believed in, after what he'd gone through?

[Lalwendë]

So Fordim now says we are voting about whether Eru is the God, not just Tolkien's God? That's what I've been arguing about all along. Good. It's clear that Eru is influenced by Tolkien's interpretation of God (amongst many other things; we must not forget that Tolkien had other influences besides his own take on Catholicism), but then Tolkien's interpretation of God is in no way shared by everyone! Even amongst Catholics I know, they would have a different view of 'God' to that put forward in the character of Eru. I especially do not like the saying that Eru is the Christian God, as that is an incredibly sweeping statement.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

quoting Tolkien and the Great War, on the TCGB

(p 122) Rob Gilson: I like to say & to hear it said & to feel boldly that the glory of beauty & order & joyful contentment in the universe is the presence of God....GB Smith was closely attentive to Tolkien's vision & in some measure shared it....Smith saw no demarcation between holiness & Faerie.

Not appropo of the discussion here, but this makes me wonder about the "allegory" or symbolism in Smith of Wootton Major. Shippey says Smith is Tolkien and I seem to recall most of the discussions on the Downs assume that as well. But perhaps that is an autobiographical fallacy once again?

If Smith = Tolkien, can we say Tolkien = Smith?

or, if Eru = God, can we say God = Eru ?

[Gothmog]

burrahobbit:

You do realize that equivalent means "the same as"? Right? Is equal to?

Due to my lack of skill in English, this might have come out wrong. But according to my dictionary (I checked) equivalent is translated likvärdig/motsvarighet which can be meaning both equal to and (this is hard to explain!) corresponding to. I might have used the word in a way not intended, but what I meant to say is that Eru has become the correspondence to God in ME, but not God. Eru can be compared with God as they are both the Creator of "their" world and the highest power, but they're not the same. Hope that cleared things up and sorry for confusing you with my inferior language proficiency.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by burrahobbit

You do realize that equivalent means "the same as"? Right? Is equal to?

But the thing to remember is that different things can easily add up to the same. You don't always require 'two' plus 'two' to equal four... remember that you can get the same exact answer with 'three' plus 'one', or 'four' plus 'zero', and if you feel like incorporating minus, you're possibilities are endless for combining different numbers (my metaphor, if it isn't clear, is that number are qualities/characteristics) and ending up with the same exact thing.

Originally Posted by Fordim

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

I re-quote that which has been quoted a lot already for posterity alone. Extra emphasis mine.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Not appropo of the discussion here, but this makes me wonder about the "allegory" or symbolism in Smith of Wootton Major. Shippey says Smith is Tolkien and I seem to recall most of the discussions on the Downs assume that as well. But perhaps that is an autobiographical fallacy once again?

If Smith = Tolkien, can we say Tolkien = Smith?

or, if Eru = God, can we say God = Eru ?

I don't know if its relevant that Tolkien chose the name Smith for the central character in his final original story - he didn't use Gilson or Wiseman for other characters. Certainly GB Smith's death lead him to state that 'something has gone crack', & he was deeply affected by his fellow TCBS-ite's death. IT confirmed that 'the Immortal Four' were anything but.

I suspect that Tolkien found himself in a very difficult position as regards his own faith. Certainly a 'Gentle Jesus, meek & mild' type of God was out of the question after the Somme, so Tolkien would have been in the position of either rejecting God altogether, or coming up with a version of God that he could accept/believe in who was both a loving, compassionate Creator but who, at the same time, could allow (& bring good out of) suffering & horror.

Why doesn't Eru intervene to prevent the suffering of His children in Middle-earth? That's as difficult a question to answer as 'Why didn't God intervene to prevent the suffering of Tolkien's generation in WW1?' Why did Eru choose Frodo to undertake an imossible task that would break him & end his life? Why would God stand back & allow the deaths of two out of Tolkien's three closest friends - friends who, like himself, were serving that same God, attempting to do His work by bringing the English people back to Him?

Tolkien believed God is a loving creator, with the best interests of his Creation at heart & with a deep love of His children, yet He stands back & allows them to suffer - why? Tolkien, it seems, never could answer that one - though he spent 60 years of his life attempting to do so through the means of his legendarium. In the end, while he couldn't provide an answer, what he did was to restate the question, lay it bare, confront us all with the mystery. The 'answer' he does offer: 'Its about Death, the inevitability of Death', Death is the 'Gift' of Eru to Men, & while we may not appreciate that 'Gift' now, in the end we will, & even the immortals will envy us for it' is not convincing, & its not what we get from reading LotR. What we get from LotR is not the 'satisfaction' that comes from recieving a pat answer to the mystery of existence, but rather the kind of satisfaction that the Hobbits got from 'seeing everything laid out fair & square with no contradictions'.

Tolkien sets out the mystery of our place in Creation, confronts us with the way things are. Eru doesn't intervene to prevent the sufferings of His children in Middle-earth, & God doesn't intervene to prevent our sufferings here. Both Smith & Gilson died horribly, & their potential was never achieved. Fact. Frodo was chosen to perform an impossible task & he lost his life as a direct result. Fact. The easy option would have been athiesm - but that let's God off the hook. Tolkien wouldn't do that, take that 'easy' option. Tolkien places God firmly in the driving seat, in the position of ultimate responsibility, & says 'This is how it is!' God/Eru exists, is an inescapable fact, & yet there is horrible suffering & waste.

There is a lot of speculation among the peoples of Middle-earth as to why 'bad stuff' happens, but we're never given a convincing, definite answer - because Tolkien was just a man, & didn't have one to give.

[Roa_Aoife]

Hold the phone, people. You want to argue how compatible Eru is with everyone's personal veiws of the Christian God?!?!? *deep breath*

So, just let me clarify, given the evidence provided (ie. the quotes from Tolkien, his own writings, etc,) can we all agree that Tolkien most likely viewed Eru as God?

The problem with the arguement that is developing is that it will never end. Everyone, even Christians, have different veiws of God. I have seen two Christians argue the nature of God, both throwing bible verses at each other, with out ever reaching a conclusion. That's why we so many different sects, (Baptists, Calvinist, Methodists, Lutherans, etc, and don't get me started going down the list of different Catholic sects.)

My word, people, are we here to discuss Tolkien's works or personal philosophy? If it's the latter, we'll be arguing till Kingdom Come. (Religious reference definitely intended.) That is, you'll be arguing, because there's no way I'm getting dragged in to that.

And no Fae, I've made it clear that I'm not Tolkien at least twice in this thread.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by Roa_Aoife

And no Fae, I've made it clear that I'm not Tolkien at least twice in this thread.

It was rethorical and not directed to you personally. First note that I'm a smart-alec, but then remember that behind the dry humor, I have a point.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Roa_Aoife

My word, people, are we here to discuss Tolkien's works or personal philosophy? If it's the latter, we'll be arguing till Kingdom Come. (Religious reference definitely intended.) That is, you'll be arguing, because there's no way I'm getting dragged in to that.

Exactly. Tolkien clearly believed Eru=God (the 'version' he believed in). Simply saying 'Well, Eru isn't at all like God, so there!' is running away from the real issue. Tolkien is saying some very definite (& perhaps very uncomfortable) things about God. Aren't they worthy of consideration at least? Do we learn anything at all about God from what Tolkien says about Eru?

Should we put Tolkien in the dock?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Roa_Aoife

The problem with the arguement that is developing is that it will never end. Everyone, even Christians, have different veiws of God.

But surely there is merit in discussing both how Tolkien's portrayal of Eru affects our own personal spiritual beliefs and how such personal beliefs affect our response to Eru and, in many ways therefore, our approach to the world that Tolkien has created? It doesn't have to be an argument if people are prepared to acknowledge and respect that other hold beliefs different to their own.

And it seems to me, in this regard, that the points made by davem in his long post above are central to the discussion in this regard. The points that he makes concerning suffering, together with wider points concerning the nature of good and evil, are a large part of the reason why neither Eru nor the Christian God (in the broad sense) fit my conception of God (assuming that there is such a being).

But, predictably, davem and I are at odds on the following issue:

Originally Posted by davem

Simply saying 'Well, Eru isn't at all like God, so there!' is running away from the real issue.

Simply because I don't accept Eru and/or Tolkien's God as my God does not mean that I am running away from the issue. On the contrary, his portrayal of God in Middle-earth, combined with his other writings (Letters etc) and fuelled by the many discussions that I have participated in here on this issue, have caused me to think very deeply about my own spiritual beliefs and attitude toward God, good and evil etc. I have not come to share Tolkien's beliefs nor have I been struck by any sudden revelations, but that does not mean that the process has not been useful (to me at least).

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Although Tolkien said that God was far too complex for him to put into words, I think it is plain that Eru is supposed to be God. The story of Ainulindele (sorry if I've spelt that wrong) bares similarities to some Biblical accounts. Firstly, creation being an offspring of Gods thought is a concept I have heard and bares resemblance to the Ainur. Also the way the Ainur sing to Eru is like onto how the Angels sing onto God, and also Melkor's discord is like Satan's rebellion.
I do not claim to be any great Tolkien scholar, or even Bible scholar, but these things seem to jump out at me. So from this I gathered that Eru was, in Tolkien's intentions, God. *shrug*

[Roa_Aoife]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man
why neither Eru nor the Christian God (in the broad sense) fit my conception of God (assuming that there is such a being).

Well, then, I feel the need to point out the original point of the thread:

Originally posted by Fordim Hedgethistle
Is Eru God? Please note that the question isn't, "Is Eru the god of Middle-Earth?" (he pretty clearly is) but, is Eru the Elvish name for God (Jehovah)?

There's a lot hanging on this question: if you believe that Eru is God, then you are saying that the moral "rules" of M-E are Christian. If you believe that Eru is not God, then those "rules" are something else.

The question was is “Eru equivalent to the Judea-Christian God?” not “Is Eru equivalent to your view of God?”

And, I said before, of course there is merit in discussing how this applies to your own spiritual growth. That’s just not what we’re supposed to be discussing here.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by Roa_Aoife

The question was is “Eru equivalent to the Judea-Christian God?” not “Is Eru equivalent to your view of God?”

The problem with simplifying it that much is that even within the group of people who believe in the Judea-Christian God, everybody still perceives Him differently. Throw in non-Christians as well as people who are simply not religious at all and you've got a the most fantastic makings for a long and enlightening discussion. You see, before you can decide if Eru is equivalent to the Judea-Christian God, you've got to figure out just who or what the Judea-Christian God is. It's like staring into shadow and trying to compare a hidden object to the one in your hand. You can't make a blanket statement about it. You can't even make a simple statement until you get some sort of idea of what it is that's just out of view.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

The story of Ainulindele (sorry if I've spelt that wrong) bares similarities to some Biblical accounts. Firstly, creation being an offspring of Gods thought is a concept I have heard and bares resemblance to the Ainur. Also the way the Ainur sing to Eru is like onto how the Angels sing onto God, and also Melkor's discord is like Satan's rebellion.

Not sure where this fits in, but consider: if your knowledge/experience/personal beliefs include a 'fallen angel' and 'angels singing', etc, and if you were to read the Silmarillion, most definitely you would compare the two ideas and say, "these are similar." If you had the same knowledge and read a car repair manual, you would have a tough time finding the same nodes of concordance (though I find car repair a great way to induce prayer ).

Another example: The SpM and I both are male, are fathers and have posted pictures of ourselves holding our children in the picture forum. From some distant POV that makes SpM = alatar. Now, zooming in a bit, you would see that he and I differ in many many ways. Even if we were clones, we still would be different at some level. And some of my posts would indicate that I'm not always running on the same brain cells...

Now, just because the two ideas (for example, those expressed in the Silmarillion and the Christian Bible/theology) have the same words, themes, etc does not make them equal, especially as we humans are great at seeing patterns where none truly exist.

Apologies to SpM in advance for any inferred insult ("he compared me to himself - the nerve! ).

[Roa_Aoife]

Excellent point, Fae. My apologies for not clarifying my point better. I still say that we should go with author's intent on this one. What I meant by my post to Saucy was that things were getting too far off base from the original idea.

Which I'm staying on what Tolkien thought, by the way. Thank you for summing up my point.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Now, just because the two ideas (for example, those expressed in the Silmarillion and the Christian Bible/theology) have the same words, themes, etc does not make them equal, especially as we humans are great at seeing patterns where none truly exist.

But, Tolkien being a Christian, do you not think that he may have deliberately put these parallels into the story? I think that he wanted the Christian message in his legend and, as I mentioned before, as Middle Earth was supposed to be a mythology for this world, he meant Eru to be the God of this world. Hence the parallels.
That's how I see it anyway.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Roa_Aoife

The question was is “Eru equivalent to the Judea-Christian God?” not “Is Eru equivalent to your view of God?”

No. The question (as clarified) was "Is Eru, in your opinion, God"? Fordim went on to reason that, if one believes that Eru is God, then the moral "rules" of Middle-earth must be Christian. In my opinion, that reasoning is defective because it relies on the assumption that God is the Christian God (whatever that involves - see below). And that is an assumption which I do not accept.

In any event, how can one answer the question as you have intepreted it given that, taking the Judeo-Christian God alone, there are widely differing interpretations of his nature? A fact that is supported by many of the responses to date on this very thread. In my opinion, one can only answer on the basis of one's personal view of God. Eru does not match up to my personal conception of God, and therefore my answer to the question can only be "no".

Originally Posted by Roa_Aoife

And, I said before, of course there is merit in discussing how this applies to your own spiritual growth. That’s just not what we’re supposed to be discussing here.

Ouch!

You seek to limit the nature of the discussion far too narrowly which, in my opinion, would be to its detriment. As should be clear from my response above, I believe that my comments are entirely relevant to the discussion at hand.

And even were they not, I would contend that they are a valid digression from the core topic.

Edit: Cross-posted with Fea (and others) who makes a similar point.

Edit 2:

Originally Posted by alatar

Apologies to SpM in advance for any inferred insult

None taken, old chap. Glad to be of service. Mind you, in light of our many similarities, you probably knew that already ...

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Roa_Aoife

What I meant by my post to Saucy was that things were getting too far off base from the original idea.

Of course, that brings up the question of what the purpose of a Tolkien-related discussion forum is. Is it solely to further our understanding of Tolkien and his works? Or can it also serve to enhance our understanding of ourselves and others ...?

But don't worry. Before I get re-named the Wormcan Man, I'll readily acknowledge that that issue is getting widely off-topic.

[Gurthang]

Well, I can see this is going around in circles. I know I'm not the first to say it, but we're debating what the question is, rather than possible answers. Well, you want to debate questions, let us debate questions.

Originally Posted by Fordim

OK, here's one for you all to consider:

Is Eru God? Please note that the question isn't, "Is Eru the god of Middle-Earth?" (he pretty clearly is) but, is Eru the Elvish name for God (Jehovah)?

There's a lot hanging on this question: if you believe that Eru is God, then you are saying that the moral "rules" of M-E are Christian. If you believe that Eru is not God, then those "rules" are something else.

I did a search for threads on this topic but kept getting messages that the search terms I used (Eru, God, is eru god, what is eru) are "too common": so obviously there's a lot of material out there already. If you know of a thread post it here please so we can all review it.

In this post, I see six possible questions.

1. Is Eru God?
   I'll answer this last.
   
2. Is Eru the god of Middle-Earth?
   Obviously yes.
   
3. Is Eru the Elvish name for God?
   Considering that Tolkien translated prayers into Elvish and used Eru for God points to the fact that Eru means God.
   
4. Is Eru the Elvish name for God (Jehovah)?
   This may look like the same question, but is entirely different. Eru might very well mean God in Elvish, but that doesn't point to it meaning God(Jehovah) exclusively. Iluvatar is truly God in M-E, and so will be called Eru.
   
   Think about our own world today: Allah vs. Jehovah(I'm using Jehovah to avoid confusion.). Muslims call Allah God. Christians call Jehovah God. The names might be the same, so does that make them the same? I'd say no, because there are fundamental differences between them.
   
   Likewise in Iluvatar vs. Jehovah. Iluvatar is Eru(which means God), in which case Jehovah could also be called Eru. But that does not make Iluvatar and Jehovah the same. It simply means that Tolkien translated God into Elvish rather than translating Jehovah.
5. 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.
   
6. Do you believe that Eru is not God and so Christian morals are not in M-E?
   Pretty much the same as above.

Now. To answer the first question: "Is Eru God?". God translates to Eru, so in that sense, yes. But I do not believe that Jehovah would translate to Iluvatar? Absolutely Not!

[Roa_Aoife]

I'm going to leave it at this. We all seem to be in agreement that to Tolkien, Eru=God. I haven't seen that point disputed in sometime, so I will consider the point conceded. If anyone wants to further discuss this point, of course, I'd be happy to.

As to my personal veiws, Eru, to me anyway, seems just vague enough to fit almost anyone's veiw of God. (With regards to Estelyn, who made some very good points right off the bat.) As to Fae and Saucy, is it just me or does it seem that we're agruing the same point in different directions?

Thankyou, Gurthang, for pointing out that we're debating the questions rather than the answers. So perhaps we aren't asking the right question at all. Perhaps what we should be asking is, "What do you get when you multiply six by seven?"

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Gurthang, may I ask a seventh?

7. Did Tolkien intend Eru to be read as God (Jehovah)?

I think that is the real question here. Otherwise, it seems to me that we may be delving into the realms of "canonicity, the book or the reader" which is a whole other thread of discussion.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

Gurthang, may I ask a seventh?

7. Did Tolkien intend Eru to be read as God (Jehovah)?

I don't think he even 'considered' it - it was so obvious to him that they were the same that he would assume his readers would understand that. I suspect this whole debate would seem superfluous to him.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

I don't think he even 'considered' it - it was so obvious to him that they were the same that he would assume his readers would understand that.

So he only ever contemplated Christians reading his tales? Or did he expect non-Christian readers to accept his "version" of God and thus draw nothing from it relevant to their own beliefs? Is this the same man who readily accepted the applicability of his stories in ways that he did not necessarily anticipate or intend?

Somehow, I see him as being more progressive than that. But perhaps I am labouring under a misapprehension ...

[davem]

Originally Posted by SpM

So he only ever contemplated Christians reading his tales? Or did he expect non-Christian readers to accept his "version" of God and thus draw nothing from it relevant to their own beliefs?

Think of his background & the society he lived in, the friends he had (Lewis, Barfield, Williams, etc). I don't think he contemplated a wide 'readership' at all - most of the time during the writing of it & in the years he spent trying to get it published - he felt it would never be read by 'the public' at all. In short, he wasn't writing for others, but principally for himself.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

Tolkien had a purpose - he intended his 'mythology' to do something, & that 'something' was to 'heal' his country. The TCBS wanted England back in Church.

Originally Posted by davem

I don't think he contemplated a wide 'readership' at all - most of the time during the writing of it & in the years he spent trying to get it published - he felt it would never be read by 'the public' at all. In short, he wasn't writing for others, but principally for himself.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

7. Did Tolkien intend Eru to be read as God (Jehovah)?

Oooooo...now that's a way of thinking about this that had not occured to me: love it! I think that there are probably several answers:

In the Sil I think that Eru clearly was Tolkien's 'version' of God and was meant to be taken in that light.

But I'm not so sure about LotR where, of course, Eru never really appears 'directly', only by very distant inference through the shadowy allusions to Elbereth et al who "dwell in the West". And here I think we see an example of Tolkien's stated preference for applicability over allegory insofar as he decided to leave his story, and his world, more 'open'. Tolkien was no fool and would have been more than aware that:

1) a lot of people in the world do not believe in God

2) a lot of people in the world do not believe in the Christian God

3) a lot of people in the world do not believe in the Catholic God

4) most people in the world do not believe in Tolkien's version of the Catholic God, whom he has emodied in the tale as Eru.

To include Eru overtly would have immediately put a gloss on the events that force readers down paths they don't want to go, or creates a barrier that they have to contend with.

So while I think Eru in the Silmarillion is pretty cleary 'supposed' (by Tolkien) to be interpreted as God, I think the shadowy "power" or "forces" at work 'behind the scenes' in LotR is 'supposed' by Tolkien to be ambiguous enough for different readers to respond to in their own way. What I see Tolkien striving for in LotR is not a particular sense of the Creator/God but for a more impersonal sense of the sacred: the landscape of Middle-Earth, the narrative itself, the peoples that we meet, the 'plan' that seems to guide history, the legends and history that the Elves inhabit all give off the odour of sanctity, even perhaps of divinity, without locating that sense within any single form or version of a god.

[Roa_Aoife]

We're back on topic! Yay!

You make a good point, Saucy, but allow me to explain from the perspective of one who has been raised in a Christian home. Is it really so difficult to believe that a person may take for granted a thought that is central to his ideaology, philosophy, and general out look on life?

I'll use a real life example: At one point, I was discussing future plans with an Agnostic friend of mine. She asked me what I was looking for in my wedding, should I ever have one. My requirements were simple- any month but May, and my uncle to serve as pastor. This confused my friend greatly, and she asked what a pastor would be doing there! She hadn't even considered a Christian wedding in a church, and I hadn't considered anything but. This isn't because I assumed she would have these things to (I knew better), but because I took my faith for granted. To me, it was obvious, as the connection between Eru and God would be obvious to Tolkien.

And as davem pointed out- Tolkien never really expected the books to be so popular.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

A Thought has just occurred to me.

What I thought of was this:
Tolkien wanted to write a new Mythology. He loved all the old mythologies in Norse and such. Most of those had multiple gods (like Thor and the crew) so he incorporated this into Middle Earth in the Valar. He probably wanted to keep alive to the minds of his audience that there was One God and so he incorporated Eru to be the master creator and satisfy both the idea of the multiple gods and the One God.
You could probably say that this would mean that Eru was not God (Jehovah) but I beg to differ. I think that Tolkien's Christian beliefs would have lead him to use Eru as Jehovah and so, perhaps, spread the Christian message.
Any thoughts?

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Gurthang

[*]Is Eru the Elvish name for God (Jehovah)?
This may look like the same question, but is entirely different. Eru might very well mean God in Elvish, but that doesn't point to it meaning God(Jehovah) exclusively. Iluvatar is truly God in M-E, and so will be called Eru.

Think about our own world today: Allah vs. Jehovah(I'm using Jehovah to avoid confusion.). Muslims call Allah God. Christians call Jehovah God. The names might be the same, so does that make them the same? I'd say no, because there are fundamental differences between them.

Likewise in Iluvatar vs. Jehovah. Iluvatar is Eru(which means God), in which case Jehovah could also be called Eru. But that does not make Iluvatar and Jehovah the same. It simply means that Tolkien translated God into Elvish rather than translating Jehovah.

Some interesting thoughts there, Gurthang, but I believe that your definitions are flawed.

First of all, Eru is not simply Elvish for "God". It is Elvish for "the One". (See the definition in the Silmarillion of the root "er", which is defined as meaning "one, alone"). In this context, it is more similar to Yahweh (also translated as Jehovah), meaning "I am" than it is to "God".

Next, Iluvatar means "All-father", and is thus much closer in meaning to our refering to God as "Father".

Finally, your reference to "Allah" is also somewhat flawed, since "Allah" is simply Arabic for "The God".

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.

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Taking the quotes out of context - I can see why you're so successful

The first quote was regarding Tolkien's original motivation pre- & during WW1, the second about his state of mind during the writing of LotR.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Fordie

What I see Tolkien striving for in LotR is not a particular sense of the Creator/God but for a more impersonal sense of the sacred: the landscape of Middle-Earth, the narrative itself, the peoples that we meet, the 'plan' that seems to guide history, the legends and history that the Elves inhabit all give off the odour of sanctity, even perhaps of divinity, without locating that sense within any single form or version of a god.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Fordie again

In the Sil I think that Eru clearly was Tolkien's 'version' of God and was meant to be taken in that light.

But why would Tolkien not apply the same considerations that you set out at 1 to 4 in your post equally to the Silmarillion? While writing LotR, he anticipated his Silmarillion stories being published. Are you suggesting that he viewed the Silmarillion tales as being for a "specialist market" while LotR would have wider appeal? That does not come across in his Letters, those dealing with the possibility of both works being published, which suggest that he regarded them as intrinsic to each other.

[Roa_Aoife]

I agree with Saucy, but in the other direction. If it is clear that Eru is God in the Sil, then Eru must still be God in LoTR, not the other way around.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

The first quote was regarding Tolkien's original motivation pre- & during WW1, the second about his state of mind during the writing of LotR.

Fair 'nuff.

Although, given the success of The Hobbit, he must have had some conception while writing LotR that it would attract a modest readership, at the very least, and that this would most probably include Atheists, Agnostics and Jews, if not those of other faiths.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Originally Posted by Roa_Aoife

I agree with Saucy, but in the other direction. If it is clear that Eru is God in the Sil, then Eru must still be God in LoTR, not the other way around.

I agree, but the question I was addressing above was Hookbill's neat number 7 -- how did Tolkien intend for the reader to understand Eru? What I'm suggesting is that as Tolkien wrote the Sil he was thinking "Eru is God and the reader should be able to see that clearly" but when he was writing LotR he was thinking "Eru is God, but I'm going to leave it a bit fuzzy for the reader so he or she can find his or her own way into the text."

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.