The atrocity of the Akallabêth

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

Fine - but most of us are not in that position, & we are the very ones Tolkien's work speaks to. We are not monks or nuns, we are ordinary 'Hobbits' & death is not a 'culmination' of our strivings.

I am not sure what you recommend to those who are theists; that they should demonise death?

Originally Posted by davem

But this is effectively treating life, not death, with contempt - as a means to an end. That is not 'accepting death' at all, it is denying it its right & proper 'respect'.

It depends; from a theological point of view, if that sacrifice was done selflessly, having a spiritual good in sight, if the cause itself is compatible with religious percepts, then it is not condemnable. "And he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it" Matthew 10.39. Various monks in Vietnam burned themselves to death to protest oppression in their country. Selfless sacrifice for the sake of others is the hallmark of great spirits everywhere, be they Christ, Gandhi, or Bahaullah.

Originally Posted by davem

Then why are the deaths I mentioned seen (& more importantly felt) as tragedies? Tolkien never implies that those who felt grief at the passing of those individuals were delusional, or 'sinful' (which would be the case if they were merely believing Melkor's lies). Those deaths are presented & perceived as wrong - & more importantly so is Aragorn's by Arwen - & she knows the theory - 'Death is the Gift of Eru to Men' 'Its only a transition' etc, etc. Yet when it comes to it she also knows it is not 'good', pleasant or right - its the opposite in fact.

Of the elves, it is said in the Atrabeth:

By the holiness of good men - their direct attachment to Eru, before and above all Eru's works - the Elves may be delivered from the last of their griefs: sadness; the sadness that must come even from the unselfish love of anything less than Eru.)

I would dare say even for Men attachment to anything other than Eru will produce sadness - and grief and loss. As in wordly religions, suffering comes from a wrong attitude - this time, the cause being the object of attachment. Perhaps a certain amount of such an error is pardonable, or even ok; but it would stop being so, when the grief becomes a cause to turn against the Creator.

Originally Posted by davem

And the evidence for that trust? Eru does not one single thing to justify it.

I think I have previously presented various instances in which Eru is an active participant in Ea, albeit not a completely direct actor. His actions prove his love of the Eruhini. Besides them, Tolkien speculates in the Letters that Aragorn in his reign would reinstitute the belief in Eru and his worship (although no temples...)
Edit:
a belief that would provide ways to reconnect - and I believe that it will have beneficial effects on those who will follow it (at least the contrary is true, those who fall further into evil have their lives shortened by various cute means). The belief "system" itself, and the effects I presume it has, are further "proofs". Of course, one has to be open to them.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I don't think that Arda Unmarred is equated with perfection; perhaps the timeless halls of Eru - or maybe just Eru is perfect. If I understand correctly, Arda Unmarred is Arda without the strong element of melkorism: accelerated moral and physical decay. Water would still carve out stone, the general interaction of elements would be preserved and, as far as I see, we are in agreement that good and evil predate Melkor or his rebellion, at least as moral choices. There would still be evil choices, yet evil would not have such a compelling force, tainting the body, and therefore the mind. Indeed, there are no obstacles, if we don't see them: either because we don't consider them as such, when they objectively exist, because we accept them a priori; either because, when they objectively exist, we consider them a mere challenge. The main challenge "there", as well as "here", is achieving our potential; in both cases it requires effort. Esspecially for humans, time is limited, and doing the best with it is always a challenge.

Which would mean that evil is indeed inbuilt by Eru and is not a result of Melkor's rebellion! In fact Melkor would not be necessary whatsoever as evil would still be manifest in Arda simply by dint of it being created by Eru.

Originally Posted by raynor

I would call this a secondary, minor, motivation, if any at all. From what I gather in the Silmarillion, he and the noldor were working out of "delight"; of himself, it is stated that he "was driven by the fire of his own heart only, working ever swiftly and alone". I interpret this as saying that it was the unique creative fire which he had, which no elf ever after had, that was driving him forward. I would dare say that a similar fire drives an artist to create.

I interpret it as Pride. He is driven by his own desire. And this bears a remarkable similarity to the actions of Melkor when he enters Arda with his kin - they work together whereas he works alone, driven by his own fire. We also see the same with the creation of the Rings - Sauron works alone to create the One, as does Celebrimbor to create the Three - and Tolkien does make it seem as though the creation even of these was highly dangerous (and led to naval-gazing, pickled creations such as Lothlorien which may be beautiful but typify the stagnation of the Elves). Tolkien seems to suggest that certainly for Valar and Elves, working alone often leads to bad results; if not this then it is at least not the correct way to go about thins, which seems to be to share and to work together.

Originally Posted by Raynor

if Art is to represent a reflection of God's creation,

That depends if it is. For the majority it is not. It may represent things which others take to be creations of God, but even then the Artist probably does not have that in mind. Even some of the creators of the greatest religious art will have had in mind not God but Aesthetics: colour, shape, language, sound. Look at the care Tolkien took in creating his own work, writing and re-writing to better secure the meaning of a single created word - his work is 99% aesthetics, even more maybe, as any notions of 'God' are so well woven in as to keep all his readers arguing yay or nay for as long as the books will exist.

Originally Posted by Raynor

Why? The elves have experienced death due to violent causes long before they met the Men; they have been enslaved, tortured and peverted by Melkor, their works and houses destroyed.

Men act as an inspiration to the Elves because what the Elves (and the Ainur) experience is not Death. They are not Mortal. They may lose a body but they will get another one. They are tied to the earth but Men are not. Elves know where they are going, Men never will. They may go back to be with Eru, they may not. There are possibilities and mysteries that the Elves cannot comprehend or understand. This is profound and sad, and the sense of urgency, of having just One Chance to get it right, that drives mortals is beyond the understanding of Elves.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Derogations aside, the essential complaint here is that Eru should not have punished the Numenoreans for disobeying his viceroys because it wasn't a fair fight.

Clarity first: Tolkien is the one who describes Eru's action as punishment for disobedience, which is rebellion.

Which it was. But that's not the issue.

Second: to accuse Eru of 'not being fair' because he is too powerful is like saying that police are not being fair when they arrest someone who has committed a crime because they have guns and the criminal only has a knife.

No - its like saying the Police are not being 'fair' or reasonable if they decide to deal with the knife-wielding criminal by employing tactical nukes to take out half the State the criminal is in. Its to accuse the Police of over-reaction & psychopathic tendencies

Further, to assert that it would have been better if impersonal nature had taken out the Numenoreans instead of Eru, is like saying that it would be better if the knife wielding criminal would take a wrong turn in his escape such that he winds up in a prison cell, than that police should arrest him and bring him in.

Poetic justice. However, I don't think your analogy is ideal. If impersonal nature (the 'Dragon') had brought down the Numenoreans it would have brought home Man's insignificance & his ultimate tragedy far more profoundly than Eru's hissy fit.

The point: those in authority have the right to use power to enforce laws. This is true regardless of whether one is talking about local police, or about a transcendant deity.

The issue of Eru's so-called "boring" role in Tolkien's legendarium has already been addressed.

'With great power comes great responsibility' as Uncle Ben said. Eru psychopathically over-reacts in the case of Numenor, because while the Numenoreans may have disobeyed the Valar they were no threat. It would have been better if the cause had been a natural cataclysm, because Eru doesn't come off well as a character in this incident. In short, I still feel it was a mistake on Tolkien's part to have Eru do something so terrible - we can never think of Eru as a loving creator again without also having to acknowledge he is also a monster. The only acceptable interpretation is that it was a natural cataclysm which post-deluvian inhabitants of M-e wrongly attributed to Eru.

And one suspects it would not have been necessary to include the event at all in the final redaction of the Legendarium, in which Tolkien attempted to make Arda conform to 'current' scientific thinking. The Sun & stars were to pre-exist the earth, which would inevitably have had to be spherical from the start - hence, no need for a re-shaping of the world, so no requirement for Eru to wreak such devastation.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Lal

Which would mean that evil is indeed inbuilt by Eru and is not a result of Melkor's rebellion! In fact Melkor would not be necessary whatsoever as evil would still be manifest in Arda simply by dint of it being created by Eru.

While I believe that the moral possibility of evil is necessary in order to have true free will, Melkor is not necessary as an agent of evil. With free will, there will be plenty of agents around. However, him not present, or at least he not corrupted, would mean that the greatest power that ever entered Ea wholly will not bent almost each and every spiritual and physical entity towards evil. Most such encounters are beyond one's power to resist, as Tolkien commented for example on Frodo's struggle against the corruption of the ring; that sort of thing you just can't fight ["There exists the possibility of being placed in positions beyond one's power."] On the other hand, there is also the general case of Gollum, who doesn't want the good path, no matter the circumstances [I am afraid, whatever our beliefs, we have to face the fact that there are persons who yield to temptation, reject their chances of nobility or salvation, and appear to be 'damnable'".]. This later case would still appear in Arda Unmarred, and rightly so, I almost dare say; for this is indeed the test of one's faith and standing; Aule's initial dwarves would have been the most marvelous stones in the world, if it weren't for Eru breathing true life and sentience on them.

Originally Posted by Lal

I interpret it as Pride. He is driven by his own desire.

I think you are playing with words here. There is difference between pride, and desire and gift; his special gifts are specifically stated, he was naturally gifted. I doubt that anyone, no matter his level of motivation, could have achieved what he did, Artistically speaking. In Ea, the fire of one's spirit is a real spiritual trait, not just a figurative manner of speech; esspecially with elves, this was consuming their body, for one thing. I would very much link this fire to the imperishable flame, the creative aspect of Eru, or the living essence of creation if you will. Pride is something more.... wordly; anyone can have it. I would say the positive aspect of pride is nobility, acknowledgment of one's special connection with the creator, prohibiting thus one from falling; the negative, much more common, is reffering ourselves not to the creator, but to others, in which case.... bring on the fight, competition, envy, superiority, etc. Feanor enjoyed both the fire in its creative aspect, and the pride, which brought about the downfall, not his Art.

Originally Posted by Lal

That depends if it is. For the majority it is not.

Then again, if we talk about the elves, one of their most important qualities concern sub-creation, the Art as defined previously. This type of Art, and these sub-creative qualities, have the most fertile ground on Valinor, from most, if not all, points of view. The inhabitants of M-E enjoy sub-creativeness too, but how much time do they have to develop it, what with all the wars, departing of the most gifted, the elves, and lack of continuity of culture, due to social decay or social extinsion.

Originally Posted by Lal

This is profound and sad, and the sense of urgency, of having just One Chance to get it right, that drives mortals is beyond the understanding of Elves.

I don't deny that Men represent a full half (if not more) of the problem of Death, treated by Tolkien in his work. It should also be noted that Men more often that not deserve to be looked upon not with admiration, but with sadness; they do not make the most of it. They are too caught up, for better or for worst, most of the times for the worst - the grip of Melkor is too strong on them.

Originally Posted by Of the beginning of days, Silmarillion

Yet the Elves believe that Men are often a grief to Manwe, who knows most of the mind of Iluvatar; for it seems to the Elves that Men resemble Melkor most of all the Ainur, although he has ever feared and hated them, even those that served him.

True enough, Eru also said that "these too in their time shall find that all that they do redounds at the end only to the glory of my work"; yet Tolkien commented:

Originally Posted by Letter #181

Their 'damnability' [of those who persist in wickedness] is not measurable in the terms of the macrocosm (where it may work good). But we who are all 'in the same boat' must not usurp the Judge.

Originally Posted by davem

No - its like saying the Police are not being 'fair' or reasonable if they decide to deal with the knife-wielding criminal by employing tactical nukes to take out half the State the criminal is in.

I disagree; the numenoreans were not wielding a knife, they had "the greatest of all armadas"; they were able to wreak havoc in Valinor and they subjugated a good part of Middle Earth, enslaving, torturing and sacrificing people to Melkor. Maybe they were worst under Sauron's corruption than Men were under Melkor's.

Originally Posted by davem

If impersonal nature (the 'Dragon') had brought down the Numenoreans it would have brought home Man's insignificance & his ultimate tragedy far more profoundly than Eru's hissy fit.

I doubt that for such a profoundly corrupted people this dragon would have been more than an accident - if it lacked conscious will behind it. They would have gone at it again, while continuing to oppress the Children of Eru in the name of Melkor.

Originally Posted by davem

Eru psychopathically over-reacts in the case of Numenor, because while the Numenoreans may have disobeyed the Valar they were no threat.

To disprove with quote:

Originally Posted by Letter #131

Faced by this rebellion, of appalling folly and blasphemy, and also real peril (since the Numenoreans directed by Sauron could have wrought ruin in Valinor itself) the Valar lay down their delegated power and appeal to God, and receive the power and permission to deal with the situation; the old world is broken and changed.

Originally Posted by davem

And one suspects it would not have been necessary to include the event at all in the final redaction of the Legendarium, in which Tolkien attempted to make Arda conform to 'current' scientific thinking. The Sun & stars were to pre-exist the earth, which would inevitably have had to be spherical from the start - hence, no need for a re-shaping of the world, so no requirement for Eru to wreak such devastation.

I doubt that the changing of the world was the main reason for the Akallabeth. I actually have serious problems picturing Arda flat, what with the skies and what not (was all Ea a tube with Arda at the bottom? Was it a sphere with Arda on the inner surface? Was it an ever widening cylinder, with Arda at its "lowest", smallest circumference? Someone help me out .)

[davem]

I think we'd have to question how 'helpless' the Valar were in the face of the Numenoreans. Such devastation as Tolkien posits could have been avoided by striking while the fleet was at sea, & I'm sure Ulmo could have done serious damage. Tolkien's statement in the letter strikes me as one of the infamous 'reflective glosses'. The problem was bringing about a change in the shape of the World & removing the Undying Lands from the world. This required a divine intervention of some kind. However, the form & nature of that intervention is the issue, & what it says about Eru's nature. I still say he doesn't come off well.

[Raynor]

Such devastation as Tolkien posits could have been avoided by striking while the fleet was at sea, & I'm sure Ulmo could have done serious damage.

Everyone, including Ar-Pharazon, was not sure of the outcome, until they reached the Undying Lands. I would say the good guys were still hoping for a good turn of events at the last moment.

But the fleets of Ar-Pharazon came up out of the deeps of the sea and encompassed Avallone and all the isle of Eressea, and the Eldar mourned, for the light of the setting sun was cut off by the cloud of the Numenoreans. And at last Ar-Pharazon came even to Aman, the Blessed Realm, and the coasts of Valinor; and still all was silent, and doom hung by a thread. For Ar-Pharazon wavered at the end, and almost he turned back. His heart misgave him when he looked upon the soundless shores and saw Taniquetil shining, whiter than snow, colder than death, silent, immutable, terrible as the shadow of the light of Iluvatar.

A beautiful passage...

Manwe only called upon Eru after the numenoreans camped "in might" about Tuna, where from all the Eldar have fled...

[Child of the 7th Age]

Such devastation as Tolkien posits could have been avoided by striking while the fleet was at sea, & I'm sure Ulmo could have done serious damage.

But why do this?

At the heart of the tale of Numenor lies a myth and a dream....Tolkien's dream of the great wave and the myth of Atlantis and the subsequent breaking of the world. If that dream element is removed and it becomes merely a tale of the sinking of the fleet by Ulmo, the whole point and reason for the story would, in my opinion, be diminished. In the Letters, Tolkien is clear that this dream and myth is what impelled him to spell out the sinking of Numenor on paper. In our desire to substitute a "just" ending to tidy up Eru's character, we would be guilty of removing the core element of faerie.

As far as I am concerned Eru is Eru and can not be critiqued (or defended) on the basis of whether or not he lives up to our modern expectations of justice or the nature of a just deity. Eru is not identical with God in our "real" world, especially not in terms of his relations with humans. This is true whether we consider the definition of God that is proposed by "religious" groups or those who question the "value" of religion. I think Tolkien would have agreed with this distinction. He repeatedly stated that he was investigating a world where the deity was distant and hidden from view. As Shippey notes, Tolkien wanted to see how men would react when faced with such a stark canvas: what impetus to do good remained to them. This is a pre-revelation world. There may have been a plan hidden in the music that included the element of revelation. Finrod and Andreth's conversation does imply this, and I can not dismiss it lightly. Still, at this point in time--in the first through the fourth age--that plan of revelation, even if it existed, was not known to Men or, by implication, to the readers of the story.

Since the Creator of Arda is so unknown and distant to men, yet also so powerful and all-knowing in the grander scheme of things, how could any man "justly" judge their god in terms of his actions? One thing is clear in Middle-earth: Eru is greater than any other being in or outside Arda and knows things no one else does. Essentially, he has no peers: men lack the wider understanding of the purpose of creation that would allow them to make a reasonable and just verdict on something as cosmic as the breaking of the earth. Yet, without peers, there can be no "just" judgment of Eru, whether we are talking about characters in the story or our own assessment. We may not like the playing field that Tolkien set up. But I see no indication that Tolkien had any doubts that Eru was the chief "good guy", despite the fact that he was so distant.

On a personal level, we are obviously free to question anything in the story. In our own minds, we can do a Milton and create a very attractive, beguiling, creative force of evil. We can turn Morgoth into the good guy or Eru into a destructive, evil force. But I don't see that as compatible with the mindset of Tolkien. If the author's intentions matter, then we have to accept his basic terms. If not....if the reader has complete freedom--, then we can dismiss the basic assumptions Tolkien has woven into the tale. So I guess we get back to canon again....just how much freedom the reader has versus the author. I'm uncomfortable with judging or defending Eru in human terms because he is not human. I also feel uncomfortable interjecting such a "judgment" into the heart of a myth. At the heart of myth or faerie always lies a mystery, something that goes beyond mankind's ability to comprehend. Human judgments destroy part of that mystery. If Tolkien's tales are strictly history, then we can judge but if part of the tale is actual myth, then we are in a different league. For all these reasons, I don't see Eru as a minor, irritable character but rather the core mystery at the heart of Tolkien's legendarium, essentially distant and unable to be comprehended in strictly human terms.

[davem]

Yet there is a problem with simply sticking a 'dream' into the heart of a story - & that is integration. The dream has to be integrated into the story in a convincing way. Any character from the story who is given a role in the dream section is going to have to act 'in character' or the dream will not be properly integrated & stick out like a sore thumb. So we're left with the question of how Eru will be percieved by the reader, & how this one act will impact on the reader's understanding of & feelings about Eru. Put Numenor on one side & what do we have of Eru in the Legendarium?

We have a Creator, who is basically distant, detatched & seemingly unconcerned for the most part, in the First & Second Ages, & who is (possibly) a behind the scenes mover of certain events at the end of the Third. And then there's Numenor.

Eru intevenes into the world in a major way for the only time - & he virtually blows it apart! Hundreds of thousands of people die & a shockwave, both literal & metaphorical, ripples out across time & space & our perception of Eru is transformed. The effect is devastating, & it seems to me that it is Numenor which forces Tolkien into writing the Athrabeth & introducing the idea that Eru will enter the world in order to heal it (the echoes of Jung's Answer to Job are possibly worth considering seriously). It is Eru who has to be 'redeemed' for the attrocity he has committed, because he is ultimately responsible &, after Numenor, cannot sit back at a distance & watch - he has entered into his world & traumatised its inhabitants. He cannot leave it again. Once he acts within the world he is committed to play a personal role, & must enter into it in order to suffer along with it.

Hence, I would argue that far from the Athrabeth being Tolkien's attempt to introduce an echo of 'Christianity' into his secondary world to make it conform more strongly to his faith, he is actually left with no option but to bring him in fully, & make him a full part of the creation. Tolkien's comment that 'already it is too close to a parody of Christianity' shows his discomfort with the idea of Eru incarnating into M-e, but equally it shows he was stuck - either no intervention at all, or a full participation.

In other words, Eru can either be a 'mystery' - ie he can remain outside the world altogether, & not intervene to destroy Numenor - or he must lose his mystery & become an active participant - & Tolkien must choose. For Eru to retain his mystery he must not intervene. For him to intervene he must sacrifice his mystery. What he cannot do, is pop in, trash the place & then go away again & pretend nothing happened. Once he enters in he has to be explained - & so he must either explain himself, or explanations will be invented & foisted upon him. He will be 'judged' for his actions because such actions have to be explained. If you come home tonight & find a big hole where your house is you will want an explanation - in fact you will not be able to rest until you get one - & if no-one offers you one you will invent one based on whatever evidence you have.

The 'basic assumptions' Tolkien has woven into the tale are neither here nor there. Tolkien knew (consciously or otherwise) that Eru's intervention into his creation & his destruction of Numenor changed Eru, & required an explanation & an account to be given by Eru himself. Numenor requires Eru's incarnation into Arda - however much that may seem like a 'parody' of Christianity to Tolkien himself - he (both Eru & Tolkien himself) has backed himself into a corner. Either no destruction of Numenor or full participation in the world he has created.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

Is M-e monotheistic or polytheistic? It can't be both. the simple answer is that it is monotheistic - except Eru doesn't do very much after Ainulindule, & the world is effectively ruled by the Valar. So for 99% of the Sil we have a polytheistic world.

Yes, M-E is monotheistic. But it is incorrect that Eru "doesn't do very much after Ainulindale". A transcendant deity, by definition, upholds the entirety of the creation 'It' has made; keeps it running, as it were. I have already addressed the issue of "polytheistic" by pointing out how this polytheocracy is unlike the typical ancient mythological polytheocracies.

Originally Posted by davem

Even in the destruction of Numenor he is not necessary - the Valar could have destroyed the Numenorean fleet.

One would expect a good reader, having had this insight, to ask the next obvious question: "Then why does Tolkien have Eru there at all?" If Tolkien had no reason, then he cannot have been much of a writer. Since we do not accept such a conclusion, the question deserves an answer. So, "What, in Tolkien's legendarium, is Eru there for?" Why does Eru do the deed when the Valar could have done it (if they could have)? The key is in that the Valar lay down their authority. Why do they do this? Because the violators of the Ban are the Second Children of Iluvatar. In other words, the Valar recognize and acknowledge that they do not have final authority regarding the Second Children of Iluvatar breaking the Ban. Thus they must lay down their authority.

Originally Posted by davem

In short, we don't need Eru as part of the story.

On the contrary. We do very much need Eru as part of the story, precisely because he has final authority over the Children of Iluvatar. The Children of Iluvatar are themselves, as a matter of fact, proof of the fundamental necessity of Eru to the plot of the entire legendarium. They are called by his own name.

Originally Posted by davem

Eru is a character who Tolkien attempts to make use of, & he is never more than a plot device. He can't be used without devastating effect, so he is hardly used at all & when he is used he replaces the Valar.

No. Quite simply, no. This misunderstands the nature of Eru. Eru is a constant part of the entire legendarium, behind the scenes (most of the time). If there were no transcendant deity, the entire legendarium would not adhere the way it does. This is fundamental.

Originally Posted by davem

What he does display is pride, lack of compassion & brute force.

If this is the extent of one's understanding of Eru as the character functions in the legendarium, then this character is fundamentally misunderstood.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

Numenor requires Eru's incarnation into Arda

I think you are misreading the Atrabeth; Eru's incarnation is required so as to finnally remove all traces of Melkor's marring.

Originally Posted by davem

Eru intevenes into the world in a major way for the only time

What about the coming of the Children? Is that a lesser even on the grand scheme of things than the shaping of a planet, which would be meaningless without them?

Originally Posted by davem

Tolkien's comment that 'already it is too close to a parody of Christianity' shows his discomfort with the idea of Eru incarnating into M-e

I disagree. I believe it shows his discomfort with the fact that his story would explicitly contain the Christian religion, which he considered, in Letter #131, fatal to a story - a recurrent idea in the letters.

Originally Posted by davem

In other words, Eru can either be a 'mystery' - ie he can remain outside the world altogether

He doesn't remain outside altogether. I would like to invite you to review the refferences I gave in post #189, which show Eru's continuous participation in the story. He is not present as a person, but through his deeds and interventions.

[davem]

We have to distinguish between the reason for having an 'Eru' - to make the world monotheistic & provide an account of Arda'a origin - & Eru as a character. If we take the original Silmarillion (which was effectively limited to the First Age) Eru is not a 'player' - he lights the blue touch paper & retires to watch the fireworks. Bringing him into the story as an active participant as in Numenor makes him a character in the story. Creating the Children ws an act that happened 'in Eternity', before time, & is part of the role he plays as creative force. His only real intervention into the world is in Numenor, & that's the problem, because argue & justify it as you will, the first time anyone apart from the Ainur encounters Eru they meet something so overwhelmingly terrifying as to make them feel neither love nor respect for him, but simple terror.

This is not a question of whether a single omnipotent deity is necessary to the plot, but the kind of deity that is. And Eru is not a transcendent mystery, nor is he a loving compassionate Father - he is a petulant, angry Artist, who will smash & kill what 'offends' him.

I can't accept the point that the Valar lay down their authority because the Children are involved - that didn't stop them going in at the end of the First Age & stomping all over the Children who had gone over to Melkor.

Ultimately the Valar provoked the Numenorean revolt - they 'rewarded' the faithful Edain with longer life but not with immortality. What message does that send out? More life is a good thing, postponing death is a good thing, not dying when you were 'intended' is a good thing. And what justification did the Numenoreans use when they defied the Valar - all of the above.

Eru's incarnation is required so as to finally remove all traces of Melkor's marring...
I believe it shows his discomfort with the fact that his story would explicitly contain the Christian religion, which he considered, in Letter #131, fatal to a story - a recurrent idea in the letters.

Which is Tolkien's choice - Tolkien decides that it is the 'only way'. And the point is this 'only way' introduces something 'fatal' into the Legendarium. Hence, for Tolkien to make such a 'fatal' addition he must have been driven by an overwhelming & unavoidable necessity. And that necessity has nothing to do with the 'fact' that Eru's entry into Arda is the 'only way' to remove the traces of Melkor from the stuff of Arda - Tolkien could equally well have decided that the 'only way' for all trace of Melkor to be removed was for all the Dwarves to simultaneously shave off their beards, or for all the Elves to juggle geese for 2 hours straight on the first Thursday in December.

In other words, Tolkien could have decided that anything at all could have 'purified' Arda, but he chose the one thing which he considered 'fatal' to any invented myth - the introduction of Primary World religion (specifically the Christian religion) ...

or did he?

As I stated, I don't think that we are dealing here with the introduction of Christianity into the Legendarium, & I don't believe that the justification given in the Athrabeth is the whole story. The incarnation of Eru in the Athrabeth is necessary in order to redeem Eru, not to redeem the world. Arda was not created perfect & then subject to a Fall - it was (as Tolkien stated) created already Fallen - by Eru's choice (in that he chose to create the world with Melkor's corruption inherent in it & further to allow Melkor to enter into it & do pretty much as he wished - there is no 'ideal' state for Arda to return to - Arda cannot be returned to an 'Edenic' state, because in Arda there was never an Eden. Men cannot be returned to their 'original, unfalllen' state, because they were never actually unfallen & never dwelt in an unfallen world.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

If we take the original Silmarillion (which was effectively limited to the First Age) Eru is not a 'player'
...
His only real intervention into the world is in Numenor

I would call this the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance; even if most of his actions are invisible to recorded history, the previous quotes I gave, of which I have the nagging feeling you continue to ignore, show that he is not passive at all.

Originally Posted by davem

Creating the Children ws an act that happened 'in Eternity', before time,

Actually, if the Eruhini were created before time, they would be Ainur. They aren't.

Originally Posted by davem

I can't accept the point that the Valar lay down their authority because the Children are involved - that didn't stop them going in at the end of the First Age & stomping all over the Children who had gone over to Melkor.

Considering that

Originally Posted by Osanwe kenta

[Melkor] knew that Manwe was bound by the commands and injunctions of Eru, and would do this or abstain from that in accordance with them, always, even knowing that Melkor would break them as it suited his purpose.

Originally Posted by Atrabeth Finrod ah Andreth

the designs of Eru ... governed all the operations of the faithful Valar

we can only surmise that even this was a result from a direct and current command [- or a past and indirect one.].

Originally Posted by davem

More life is a good thing, postponing death is a good thing, not dying when you were 'intended' is a good thing.

Acccording to the Atrabeth, all these were good before all Men started worshipping Melkor. After that, their nature became tainted.

Originally Posted by davem

Which is Tolkien's choice - Tolkien decides that it is the 'only way'.

Yes, because Melkor was the greatest of all the Ainur; his might surpassed them, and was second to Eru only; this might became the corrupting power in the creation, which cannot be erased save by Eru. The fall of the most gifted is a recurrent motive: Melkor, Feanor, the Numenoreans.

Originally Posted by davem

there is no 'ideal' state for Arda to return to - Arda cannot be returned to an 'Edenic' state, because in Arda there was never an Eden.

There was a specific moment in time when the marring moved from a conceptual and moral level to a physical one - the coming of Melkor to Arda at the building of Utumno

Originally Posted by Of the beginning of days, Silmarillion

And though the Valar knew naught of it as yet, nonetheless the evil of Melkor and the blight of his hatred flowed out thence, and the Spring of Arda was marred. Green things fell sick and rotted, and rivers were choked with weeds and slime, and fens were made, rank and poisonous, the breeding place of flies; and forests grew dark and perilous, the haunts of fear; and beasts became monsters of horn and ivory and dyed the earth with blood.

Men cannot be returned to their 'original, unfalllen' state, because they were never actually unfallen & never dwelt in an unfallen world.

Men are created unfallen by Eru; Silmarillion (and more so Atrabeth) reffers to a certain moment when the marring of Men occured, after their coming.

Originally Posted by davem

And Eru is not a transcendent mystery, nor is he a loving compassionate Father - he is a petulant, angry Artist, who will smash & kill what 'offends' him.

This view is in stark contradiction with that of the valar and the elves - and of the faithful Men. Concening the denial that Eru is good and that his work will end in good, it is said in HoME X by Manwe:

Originally Posted by Of the severence of marriage, Later Quenta Silmarillion

This the Marrer hath denied, and in this denial is the root of evil, and its end is in despair.

[Elmo]

Well don't they realise Eru has given us good reasons to feel this way...

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I would call this the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance; even if most of his actions are invisible to recorded history, the previous quotes I gave, of which I have the nagging feeling you continue to ignore, show that he is not passive at all.

But he is not an active participant in the world - he is not an actor within time - he does not do anything in the world until Numenor. I'm attempting to get at the effect he has on the thinking of the inhabitants & how they think about him. Its his character that is at issue - we can't ignore the fact that the major part played by Eru (after starting things off is one of destruction & thus there is (to my mind) the requirement for him to make amends.

One cannot simply state 'Eru is beyond human value judgements because he is so much greater than Man - so are the Valar, & no-one feels it is wrong to judge their actions, or critique their characters - Tolkien is the most ready of any of us to do that very thing. Melkor is also much greater than Man & his actions & motives could equally be characterised as beyond our understanding . The point is, once those beings enter into the world & become active participants (rather than vague 'influences') they become open to analysis & criticism.

Actually, if the Eruhini were created before time, they would be Ainur. They aren't.

No - their origin was in the Music. They may not have come into physical being until after the creation, but they existed in the mind of Eru from before the creation.

Acccording to the Atrabeth, all these were good before all Men started worshipping Melkor. After that, their nature became tainted.

According to Elvish tradition as set out by Finrod - can we accept this as a 'fact' within the mythology or is it simply speculation?

Yes, because Melkor was the greatest of all the Ainur; his might surpassed them, and was second to Eru only; this might became the corrupting power in the creation, which cannot be erased save by Eru. The fall of the most gifted is a recurrent motive: Melkor, Feanor, the Numenoreans.

Only in the beginning. Its clear that by the time of his fall he was far from superior. And once again, it is Tolkien's choice that the 'only way' for Eru to deal with this problem is Eru's incarnation - the introduction of such a 'fatal flaw' requires some serious justification - why paint himself into a corner where the 'only' solution is something he disapproves so strongly of?

There was a specific moment in time when the marring moved from a conceptual and moral level to a physical one - the coming of Melkor to Arda at the building of Utumno

No, the corruption (potential at least & arguably (argued by Tolkien himself btw) here inevitable came in with the dissonance introduced by Melkor & Eru's choice to create a world with such an 'inevitability' inherent.

Men are created unfallen by Eru; Silmarillion (and more so Atrabeth) refers to a certain moment when the marring of Men occured, after their coming.

Men are born into a world which is by its nature & in its creation, corrupt. Men & Elves are more prone to fall because of the nature of the world they inhabit, & the very presence of the immortal Elves is in itself guaranteed to inspire a feeling of wrongness in the fact of their (men's) own mortality.

This view is in stark contradiction with that of the valar and the elves - and of the faithful Men. Concening the denial that Eru is good and that his work will end in good, it is said in HoME X by Manwe:

We're still dealing with the Eru we are presented with in the story - not the opinions of various characters - or statements about him by Tolkien - does the Eru we are presented with live up to the hype?

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

But he is not an active participant in the world - he is not an actor within time - he does not do anything in the world until Numenor

I don't see what is the problem with Eru not being wholly in Ea. Also, one might deduct from your statement that he was present in the world when Numenor when it was destroyed, which is false.

Originally Posted by davem

One cannot simply state 'Eru is beyond human value judgements because he is so much greater than Man

Then again, Tolkien refrained from judging the ultimate damnability of Gollum, since that would inquire into 'Goddes privitee', a concept he clearly respected. If this can be applied to a mere hobbit, all the more to Eru. Then again, you are free to feel otherwise.

Originally Posted by davem

so are the Valar, & no-one feels it is wrong to judge their actions

Yet Tolkien warned against finding faults and assigning guilts to Manwe, because he was the spirit of highest wisdom and prudence in Arda, with direct recourse to Eru, with the highest knowledge of the Music.

Originally Posted by davem

Tolkien is the most ready of any of us to do that very thing.

I wouldn't be so sure .

Originally Posted by davem

Melkor is also much greater than Man & his actions & motives could equally be characterised as beyond our understanding

I for one don't find his actions surprising or unexplainable, at least in the context of this work.

Originally Posted by davem

No - their origin was in the Music. They may not have come into physical being until after the creation, but they existed in the mind of Eru from before the creation.

I am afraid you are seriously downplaying Eru's continous role and participation into Arda, as the continuous source of human life. In time, the mortal Men will be the only sentient, embodied creatures to rule Arda.

Originally Posted by davem

According to Elvish tradition as set out by Finrod - can we accept this as a 'fact' within the mythology or is it simply speculation?

I don't find it hard to believe that an untainted being can enjoy correctly the gifts of divinity.

Originally Posted by davem

Only in the beginning. Its clear that by the time of his fall he was far from superior.

By the time of his fall? He was able to fight off all the valar, and he would have probably obtained decissive victories were it not for the coming of Tulkas. His overwhelming power was even more underscored by Tolkien in Myths Transformed.

Originally Posted by davem

And once again, it is Tolkien's choice that the 'only way' for Eru to deal with this problem is Eru's incarnation - the introduction of such a 'fatal flaw' requires some serious justification - why paint himself into a corner where the 'only' solution is something he disapproves so strongly of?

He himself considered parodying Christianity as almost inevitable. He also reffered to the Redemption of Man (although far in the future) in the Letters, which, to me, is also a sign of a more direct manifestation of God.

Originally Posted by davem

No, the corruption (potential at least & arguably (argued by Tolkien himself btw) here inevitable came in with the dissonance introduced by Melkor & Eru's choice to create a world with such an 'inevitability' inherent.

What I meant was (and you apparently agree by the use of potential) that the inhabitants of Arda knew it at one time as unmarred - or at least when its physical marring didn't started.

Originally Posted by davem

Men are born into a world which is by its nature & in its creation, corrupt.

Originally Posted by Atrabeth

'Matter' is not regarded as evil or opposed to 'Spirit'. Matter was wholly good in origin. It remained a 'creature of Eru' and still largely good, and indeed self-healing, when not interfered with: that is, when the latent evil intruded by Melkor was not deliberately roused and used by evil minds.

Originally Posted by Myths Transformed

...the foundations of this world are good, and it turns by nature to good, healing itself from within by the power that was set there in its making; and evil in Arda would fail and pass away if it were not renewed from without: that is: that comes from wills and being [sic] that are other than Arda itself.

They also come into a world that is good at its foundations, which heals itself from within, for it has the imperishable flame at its heart; it is also a world where knowledge and worship of Eru would be reinstated after Aragorn; a world where "He will not suffer Himself to be deprived of His own, not by any Enemy, not even by ourselves. ".

We're still dealing with the Eru we are presented with in the story - not the opinions of various characters - or statements about him by Tolkien -

If you chose to ignore the foremost sources of information, insight and wisdom in this world, from inside and outside, if they contradict your position, then I would say the value of your opinion is questionable.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I don't see what is the problem with Eru not being wholly in Ea. Also, one might deduct from your statement that he was present in the world when Numenor when it was destroyed, which is false.

Its clear that Eru intruded directly into the action of Arda in order to destroy the Numenoreans - something he had never done directly before (unless you count the giving of life to the Fathers of the Dwarves.

Then again, Tolkien refrained from judging the ultimate damnability of Gollum, since that would inquire into 'Goddes privitee', a concept he clearly respected. If this can be applied to a mere hobbit, all the more to Eru. Then again, you are free to feel otherwise.

Where I would argue with Tolkien here is that this is not a question of 'Goddes privitee' but of the author's. It is perfectly fine for an author to create a character such as Eru who is beyond the criticism of the other characters, but to create a character & then demand that the reader be bound by the rules of the Secondary World & not be allowed to question the character or analyse his or her motives seems to confuse the rules of the Primary & the Secondary Worlds. The inhabitants of Arda may be required to worship Eru & live according to his rules, but the reader is (one hopes) not required so to do. Eru is a character & is not excluded from from criticism by the reader even if he is excluded from such criticism by the inhabitants of the Secondary World.

One could ask why Tolkien chose to create a character who is beyond criticism.

Yet Tolkien warned against finding faults and assigning guilts to Manwe, because he was the spirit of highest wisdom and prudence in Arda, with direct recourse to Eru, with the highest knowledge of the Music.

Well, he has some characters in his invented world warning other characters in his invented world against finding faults & assigning guilt to Manwe. He (much as I respect him) doesn't get to tell the reader or critic not to do that.

I for one don't find his actions surprising or unexplainable, at least in the context of this work.

Because you're judging him on what he does - you can't possibly know the depths of his being - one who existed before the beginning of the World & who took part in its creation. You look at his actions & judge his character - why is this wrong in the case of Eru?

By the time of his fall? He was able to fight off all the valar, and he would have probably obtained decissive victories were it not for the coming of Tulkas. His overwhelming power was even more underscored by Tolkien in Myths Transformed.

I was talking about the end of the First Age - which seems pretty much of a walk over. Melkor had dissipated so much of himself into Arda that he was bound to his body, cowering in his own dungeons.

He himself considered parodying Christianity as almost inevitable. He also reffered to the Redemption of Man (although far in the future) in the Letters, which, to me, is also a sign of a more direct manifestation of God.

Why was it 'almost inevitable'? He was writing the story. Nothing was 'inevitable' in the sense you imply. The incarnation of Eru is either a parody of something Tolkien should not have parodied or it is in there for reasons of internal consistency - which have no similarity to the Christian mythos....

What I meant was (and you apparently agree by the use of potential) that the inhabitants of Arda knew it at one time as unmarred - or at least when its physical marring didn't started.

But it was (by Tolkien's admission) always 'marred' in the sense that it contained Melkor's dissonance in its creation, & his malice in its making, not to mention his slow infecting of it. Its 'unmarred' state was an illusion.

They also come into a world that is good at its foundations, which heals itself from within, for it has the imperishable flame at its heart; it is also a world where knowledge and worship of Eru would be reinstated after Aragorn; a world where "He will not suffer Himself to be deprived of His own, not by any Enemy, not even by ourselves. ".

And to jump to the subject of another thread, is Melkor not also 'one of his own'?

If you chose to ignore the foremost sources of information, insight and wisdom in this world, from inside and outside, if they contradict your position, then I would say the value of your opinion is questionable.

I'm not expressing an 'opinion' one way or another - I'm challenging statements to see if they stand up - which, I think is exactly what you're doing with me. I'm attempting to get at the truth (or at least to have an interesting debate on a subject that interests me) rather than simply accepting statements made by characters or author at face value.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

Its clear that Eru intruded directly into the action of Arda in order to destroy the Numenoreans - something he had never done directly before (unless you count the giving of life to the Fathers of the Dwarves.

Or if we count the appearance of the Eruhini, the action of Eru's imperishable flame at the heart of the world, his converses with Manwe, all the other interventions Manwe saw in his vision and all the new things that appear in each new age, which dont have Ainulindale as their source. There is no single evidence that Eru stops being interested in creation, quite the contrary. Although this wrong belief is cherrished by Melkor and Sauron.

Originally Posted by davem

Eru is a character & is not excluded from from criticism by the reader even if he is excluded from such criticism by the inhabitants of the Secondary World.

I am really curious what means you have of judging a transcendent being, whether in a real or imaginary setting. That is a territory which neither science nor mind can enter. We don't know the purposes and the effects of actions - esspecially since he is the ultimate alchemist, able to transform his actions from divine punishments to divine gifts - or other's actions ("but it seemed that [Melkor's music's] most triumphant notes were taken by the other and woven into its own solemn pattern"). I am really looking forward to your answer.

Originally Posted by davem

Well, he has some characters in his invented world warning other characters in his invented world against finding faults & assigning guilt to Manwe. He (much as I respect him) doesn't get to tell the reader or critic not to do that.

It wasn't characters to state that, it were his own notes, in Myths Transformed. That you continue to disregard the position the author gives to certain characters in his own created world is your own choice.

Originally Posted by davem

Because you're judging him on what he does - you can't possibly know the depths of his being - one who existed before the beginning of the World & who took part in its creation. You look at his actions & judge his character - why is this wrong in the case of Eru?

Because it's a false analogy, the two can never be compared; one is the All-source, the other is just a creation.

Originally Posted by davem

I was talking about the end of the First Age - which seems pretty much of a walk over. Melkor had dissipated so much of himself into Arda that he was bound to his body, cowering in his own dungeons.

I really don't follow why you are using this "red herring" on me. I was initially talking about Melkor's power at the time when he started his subjugation of the matter of Arda, and now you are bringing the discussion to the end of this story.

Originally Posted by davem

Why was it 'almost inevitable'? He was writing the story.

Yes, he was writting it with the purpose of reflecting a splinter of Light, hence the almost inevitability.

But it was (by Tolkien's admission) always 'marred' in the sense that it contained Melkor's dissonance in its creation, & his malice in its making, not to mention his slow infecting of it. Its 'unmarred' state was an illusion.

I am afraid we both consumed this part of the discussion. We agree that marring was potentially there, but not yet manifest to the inhabitants of Arda. I propose we agree to disagree on how real the potential marring was and how un-real the un-marring state was.

Originally Posted by davem

And to jump to the subject of another thread, is Melkor not also 'one of his own'?

An interesting thought. I would argue that, considering the vast differential of power between Melkor on one side (and possibly Sauron and the rest of the fallen maiar) and the Eruhini on the other side, that Eru's adamancy would extend solely to the second cathegory - they have little if any chances in fighting corruption.

Originally Posted by davem

I'm not expressing an 'opinion' one way or another - I'm challenging statements to see if they stand up - which, I think is exactly what you're doing with me.

Yes, but you are ignoring relevant information, you are refusing the given context and so you are effectively taking things out of context. I doubt the value of deriving conclusions from such an enterprise.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Or if we count the appearance of the Eruhini, the action of Eru's imperishable flame at the heart of the world, his converses with Manwe, all the other interventions Manwe saw in his vision and all the new things that appear in each new age, which dont have Ainulindale as their source. There is no single evidence that Eru stops being interested in creation, quite the contrary. Although this wrong belief is cherrished by Melkor and Sauron.

Eru is a remote figure. He is not directly involved in the action to any great degree. Where he does intervene his motives are obscure & cannot be attributed to anything other than aesthetic considerations in most cases.

I am really curious what means you have of judging a transcendent being, whether in a real or imaginary setting. That is a territory which neither science nor mind can enter. We don't know the purposes and the effects of actions - esspecially since he is the ultimate alchemist, able to transform his actions from divine punishments to divine gifts - or other's actions ("but it seemed that [Melkor's music's] most triumphant notes were taken by the other and woven into its own solemn pattern"). I am really looking forward to your answer.

One can judge any character (transcendent or otherwise) on their actions & what we know of their motivations. And if an author chooses to introduce a 'transcendent' being as a character one can analyse that character, the way it is used & whether it is convincing. It seems from your argument that you simply accept the character unquestioningly, without any analysis & take any statements made about it at face value without asking if they correspond in any way with what is known of that character. A writer cannot simply invent an omnipotent character who can do anything & ask his reader to just accept that character - anymore than he can just invent a character that pulls whole roast ducks out of his ears without giving a convincing explanation for how & why he does it & expect the reader to accept it.

It wasn't characters to state that, it were his own notes, in Myths Transformed. That you continue to disregard the position the author gives to certain characters in his own created world is your own choice.

Well, I'm sorry, but no author has the right to tell his readers not to judge his characters' actions or motivations - if he does that he is either seeking to dominate his readers or he knows that his characters' behaviour is illogical. I think its pretty clear that Tolkien found the actions of the Valar to be illogical in many cases, & oftentimes tied himself in knots trying to construct justifications for what they did - to resort to telling his readers 'you aren't allowed to make judgements about this character's actions', or 'you aren't smart (or enlightened) enough to understand what this character did' is incredibly patronising - & for the record I don't think this is what Tolkien meant those notes to mean - I think you misunderstand his intentions.

I really don't follow why you are using this "red herring" on me. I was initially talking about Melkor's power at the time when he started his subjugation of the matter of Arda, and now you are bringing the discussion to the end of this story.

Yeees, but you were answering a point I made, & in that point I was referring to Morgoth's final state, so I don't see how my reiterating my original point can be classed as introducing a red herring.

Yes, he was writting it with the purpose of reflecting a splinter of Light, hence the almost inevitability. I am afraid we both consumed this part of the discussion. We agree that marring was potentially there, but not yet manifest to the inhabitants of Arda. I propose we agree to disagree on how real the potential marring was and how un-real the un-marring state was.

But that's the central point - not something we can agree to disagree on. Either Arda was really 'marred' from the beginning or it wasn't.

An interesting thought. I would argue that, considering the vast differential of power between Melkor on one side (and possibly Sauron and the rest of the fallen maiar) and the Eruhini on the other side, that Eru's adamancy would extend solely to the second cathegory - they have little if any chances in fighting corruption.

Finrod clearly states that Eru will not allow himself to be deprived of any of his own - even by their own choice (hence they are not totally free, & if anyone wants to be free of him they will have their choice over-ridden by Eru - what does this tell us about the nature of Eru?). It seems that if we take Finrod's words at face value & do not analyse of question them, we must accept that we have here a clear statement of universalism, & that in the end everyone will be redeemed - including Melkor

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Originally Posted by davem

Eru is a remote figure. He is not directly involved in the action to any great degree.

As far as we are aware.

It has always struck me that if Eru were to intervene in a major way or even give himself more of a character then he would be going against the inherent nature of the Judo-Christian God he may (or may not) be based on; i.e. infinite and mysterious and incomprehensable etcetera. Also, would it really be as interesting a story if he did? Gandalf is sometimes criticised as the get-out clause, but his saving grace is that he is not 'all-powerful' nor does he chose to use all the power he has and so failure is still possible for him.
Yet, if Eru Illuvatar were to intervene in a big way, then it would soon finish the story and we'd all go home for tea. The subtle workings, odd coincidences and interesting occurrences make for interesting stories as apposed to evil being simply rubbed out in a blink.
At least, that's how I have always looked at it and I reserve the right to be proven wrong...

[Elmo]

Isn't that the crux of the matter though he did intervene in a BIG way what with him destroying a whole civilisation and whatnot

[Raynor]

Where he does intervene his motives are obscure & cannot be attributed to anything other than aesthetic considerations in most cases.

I doubt that he saved Gandalf or helped finnish the ring's quest for aesthetic considerations. I am curious what considerations you were having in mind.

One can judge any character (transcendent or otherwise) on their actions & what we know of their motivations.

Of what motivations do you know? I know only those I presented, which you reject.

A writer cannot simply invent an omnipotent character who can do anything & ask his reader to just accept that character - anymore than he can just invent a character that pulls whole roast ducks out of his ears without giving a convincing explanation for how & why he does it & expect the reader to accept it.

What do you mean? That for Eru to be convincing for you, Tolkien has to explain his omnipotence?

Well, I'm sorry, but no author has the right to tell his readers not to judge his characters' actions or motivations - if he does that he is either seeking to dominate his readers or he knows that his characters' behaviour is illogical.

We don't even know the mystery of Men, but you require to know the mystery of Eru himself. Or judge him by not knowing that. Judge him if you will, but your analysis will be marred by its partiality of data, and thus, most likely, logically flawed.

I think its pretty clear that Tolkien found the actions of the Valar to be illogical in many cases

What would be one such illogical action?

to resort to telling his readers 'you aren't allowed to make judgements about this character's actions', or 'you aren't smart (or enlightened) enough to understand what this character did' is incredibly patronising - & for the record I don't think this is what Tolkien meant those notes to mean - I think you misunderstand his intentions.

For the record, I have said none of those things. I only stated that he warns against judging Manwe, for the given reasons.

Yeees, but you were answering a point I made, & in that point I was referring to Morgoth's final state,

I disagree; I was addressing your statement that "Numenor requires Eru's incarnation into Arda" by discussing the necessity of it due to Melkor's immense power which he invested in corrupting Arda. You can backtrack that yourself.

Either Arda was really 'marred' from the beginning or it wasn't.

Ainulindale is a work of progress in time. Not all that it reveals happens instantl; its seeds are present in actual Ea, but they take time to develop. Therefore, I see no problem with Arda being free for a while from the strong corruption of Melkor it later has.

Finrod clearly states that Eru will not allow himself to be deprived of any of his own

Your generalisation is unwarranted; the initial quote didn't say "any" of his own, while clearly stating a difference between his own and the Enemy. That Eru could consider Melkor his own is remotely possible, but at least not resulting from this quote, which hints otherwise.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Originally Posted by hewhoarisesinmight

Isn't that the crux of the matter though he did intervene in a BIG what with hilm destroying a whole civilisation and whatnot

Touche.

The only explanation I can think of is that Numinor had to be destroyed for the sake of the story and the Valar either did not have the power to do so or did not want to wipe people out without Eru's express permission... although, then there are the Orcs that they quite willingly killed. Then again, Numenor was different and... this is confusing!

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

To say that Tolkien's Eru is some how a picture of his beliefs of God is a dangerous thing to do because here we have Eru placed in a legend that had nothing to do with the Jewish God and so to pin ideas of 'God is a meanie' or 'The Numenorians had every right to do such and such' is not a good road.

Yours is a valid caution. I have been aware throughout this debate that some of us may be equating Eru with Yahweh. It is hard not to do, regardless of one's personal beliefs and leanings. My own approach has been to take what Tolkien has written as the basis for understanding his use of the transcendant deity in his works, namely Eru, and applying logic in order to arrive at hoped for reasonable conclusions. One does best to avoid attempting to create a full-blown theology for a fictional world. Nevertheless, questions are asked, and reasonable answers may be arrived at.

Good-bye for now, I shall return in approximately 41 days.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by lmp

I have been aware throughout this debate that some of us may be equating Eru with Yahweh.

So has Tolkien in his 1971 BBC interview

Dennis Gerrolt: Where is God in The Lord of the Rings?

Tolkien: He's mentioned once or twice.

Dennis Gerrolt: Is he the One?...

Tolkien: The One, yes.

Take care lmp

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I doubt that he saved Gandalf or helped finnish the ring's quest for aesthetic considerations. I am curious what considerations you were having in mind.

I don't see that we're ever told what his motivations are, why he does what he does or what the point of anything is as far as he's concerned - his main concern seems to be his own 'glory' & making sure everyone does as they're told.

What do you mean? That for Eru to be convincing for you, Tolkien has to explain his omnipotence?

No - that he has to explain his character, motivations & provide convincing justifications for his actions.

We don't even know the mystery of Men, but you require to know the mystery of Eru himself. Or judge him by not knowing that. Judge him if you will, but your analysis will be marred by its partiality of data, and thus, most likely, logically flawed.

The only 'data' is the data Tolkien has provided us with. Eru is not a 'mystery'. Eru is an invented character within a fictional world. This 'mystery' you perceive in him is your own addition. What I know from the data supplied is that Eru is an undeveloped figure whose behaviour is not properly explained & that is what I'm judging.

What would be one such illogical action?

I think the knots Tolkien ties himself in over Manwe's treatment of Melkor (as set out in Osanwe Kenta) shows that he realised that Manwe's behaviour made absolutely no sense (& I have to say that the 'explanation' he comes up with didn't convince me for a minute)

I disagree; I was addressing your statement that "Numenor requires Eru's incarnation into Arda" by discussing the necessity of it due to Melkor's immense power which he invested in corrupting Arda. You can backtrack that yourself.

...which 'backtracking' lead me back to my point:

Originally Posted by me

Only in the beginning. Its clear that by the time of his fall he was far from superior.

Therefore, I see no problem with Arda being free for a while from the strong corruption of Melkor it later has.

So when Tolkien stated that Arda was created with the potential for, if not the inevitability of, a fall inherent in it, he meant it was created without that potential for a bit & then the potential was added in after that - so Eru not only could, but actually did, create Arda without that potential, but then introduced it in? Sorry, but i'm not sure that stands up...

Your generalisation is unwarranted; the initial quote didn't say "any" of his own, while clearly stating a difference between his own and the Enemy.

So to say

"He will not suffer Himself to be deprived of His own, not by any Enemy, not even by ourselves. ".

is an entirely different thing to saying "He will not suffer Himself to be deprived of any of His own?

Are hairs not being split here?

So has Tolkien in his 1971 BBC interview

Oh, come on - the simplest & most obvious interpretation of Tolkien's response is that he was referring to Eru, the 'God' of M-e.

[The 1,000 Reader]

To interrupt your essays, if Melkor was so tough, why did Tulkas take him down? Was Tulkas stronger but just not around?

[Raynor]

I don't see that we're ever told what his motivations are, why he does what he does or what the point of anything is as far as he's concerned - his main concern seems to be his own 'glory' & making sure everyone does as they're told.

We are told, but you disregard my quotes. I don't know if this is going anywhere.

No - that he has to explain his character, motivations & provide convincing justifications for his actions.

You genuinely expect that from a religious person? To put God in a frame? May I ask if you are theist?

I think you lose sight of spiritual meaning the myth has for Tolkien, that of returning us to an un-fallen state, of a more special communion. I hardly see how this can be achieved by rationalising God. Of course, that may not suit some critics. They way Eru is presented is not a literary flaw, but a religious necessity; I would venture so far as to say even a philosophical one - who can put transcendence into words?

What I know from the data supplied is that Eru is an undeveloped figure whose behaviour is not properly explained & that is what I'm judging.

How come you hold on so much to judging, in a case where you also state that there isn't enough information? What sort of validity would your conclusion have? At most, literary; you can reduce the reality of this work's Creator to a finite character, and state that he is underdeveloped, and could be fine, to someone who could swallow this reduction (which I consider impossible). But you cannot draw conclusions, moral or otherwise, if you don't know enough; to do so seems, to me, to be an empty exercise.

I think the knots Tolkien ties himself in over Manwe's treatment of Melkor (as set out in Osanwe Kenta) shows that he realised that Manwe's behaviour made absolutely no sense (& I have to say that the 'explanation' he comes up with didn't convince me for a minute)

You mean Manwe would have made more sense if he would have kept Melkor indefinitely, despite the initial judgement? What sort of justice is that?? What could have justified such an arbitrary change of thought? Please explain.

Only in the beginning. Its clear that by the time of his fall he was far from superior.

Which doesn't address in the least my (then) previous argument and my explanation, hence my feeling it is a red herring: the amount of power he had at the end of the first age has no relevance to the amount of power he had at the time, far superior to the valar's, which he used it to corrupt Arda. To reiterate my argument, that corruptive power could not have been annihilated by the valar, only by Eru.

So when Tolkien stated that Arda was created with the potential for, if not the inevitability of, a fall inherent in it, he meant it was created without that potential for a bit & then the potential was added in after that - so Eru not only could, but actually did, create Arda without that potential, but then introduced it in? Sorry, but i'm not sure that stands up...

I don't know why you feign you don't know the difference between a potential and actualising that potential. The corruption of Arda existed as a potential, as a possibility, ever since the music, and it became a reality of Arda, with the coming of Melkor and the making of Utumno.

is an entirely different thing to saying "He will not suffer Himself to be deprived of any of His own?

It is not entirely different, but is not logically sound. You cannot use unwarranted generalisation in a debate, esspecially when in the quote, and in the story, "his own" and enemy are qualitatively different, on all grounds, esspecially the moral one. To introduce such a qualifier requires more than a personal desire for it to be accepted.

Oh, come on - the simplest & most obvious interpretation of Tolkien's response is that he was referring to Eru, the 'God' of M-e.

G: Now this seems to me to be somewhat like Tennyson's "the old order changeth, yielding place to new, and God fulfills himself in many ways". Where is God in The Lord of the Rings?

T: He's mentioned once or twice.

G: Is he the One?...

T: The One, yes.

G: Are you a theist?

T: Oh, I'm a Roman Catholic. Devout Roman Catholic.

If you really believe that God here is reffered to by Tolkien only as Eru, I really don't know how to convince you; you seem to disregard again the spiritual underlying of his myth making.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Yet there is a problem with simply sticking a 'dream' into the heart of a story - & that is integration. The dream has to be integrated into the story in a convincing way. Any character from the story who is given a role in the dream section is going to have to act 'in character' or the dream will not be properly integrated & stick out like a sore thumb. So we're left with the question of how Eru will be percieved by the reader, & how this one act will impact on the reader's understanding of & feelings about Eru. Put Numenor on one side & what do we have of Eru in the Legendarium?

Yes, you are right, davem. But the difference may be that I am comfortable with that act of integration while you are less so. Obviously from this thread, there is no one opinion on this. But if you accept the basic ground rules that JRRT laid down, then Eru is a distant figure who, even if he is known to the author, is not truly known to the Men in the story and, by implication, the Men reading the story. Since we do not even understand the nature of Eru or the mystery that stands at the heart of creation, how can we possibly make a judgment on informed grounds as to the "justness" of Eru's act?

That puts the reader in a strange position. He can accept that ambiguity or insert some other image of "god" or "ungod" into the story to try and achieve greater clarity. I think both Hookbill and Littlemanpoet have hit the nail on the head. In Imp's words that bear repeating.....

I have been aware throughout this debate that some of us may be equating Eru with Yahweh. It is hard not to do, regardless of one's personal beliefs and leanings.......One does best to avoid attempting to create a full-blown theology for a fictional world.

My own feeling is that on this point both the mystery and the ambiguity must remain. There's certainly nothing wrong with personal speculation, speculation that seems to be inevitably shaped by our own personal views of deity in the "real" world. But there is a chasm of not knowing that Tolkien purposely placed at the heart of his story, and there is a certain point we can't go beyond. Tolkien almost seems to delight in doing this to the reader. One moment we are given hints of a greater force at work by the use of the passive voice in the narrative or by showing Faramir's men standing at "grace" after their meal. The next moment we are given a hobbit society that has absolutely no religious content. Except for a footnote or two in the Letters, we have hobbits who aren't really aware of Varda and Manwe, let alone Eru. The one exception is Frodo and Sam who are the only two "Little Folk" who take a step closer to that chasm and peer down into its depths.....hence Samwise's invocations to Varda and Gandalf's comments on Frodo's light being like that of the silmarils. Even these glimpses, however, are guarded and spell out little beyond the mere acknowledgement that there are forces at work beyond the edge of the story.

Several questions intrigue me that no one has discussed. Tolkien was no fool. Was he aware of the potential outcry from some readers about the "unjust" nature of Eru's act given what happened in Numenor? Was that reaction something that he could not conceive of, since his own personal view of deity was Catholic at the core? Or did he simply see it as not being a relevant discussion or response in the context of constructed myth?

And secondly, davem, if we accept (only for purposes of argument )your suggestion that Eru is a minor, irritable, and seemingly flawed character, how big a "defect" is this? If such a major flaw exists at the heart of Middle-earth, what does it do to the Legendarium overall? Even if men of Middle earth and the reader know virtually nothing about Eru's nature and see little active involvement on his part, the reader does know he is the Creator of the world and holds mysteries that no one else comprehends. Can the Creator of the world who stands at the beginning of the whole legendarium be a "minor and irritable" character, or is this a fatal flaw? To put it bluntly, did Tolkien blow it by giving us tiny glimpses of deity or reflected deity in one part of the narrative and pulling back in others so that we are ultimately left with unaswered questions. If the author truly wanted to keep "religion" out of his created world, as he certainly stated at one point, then why start the whole thing off with Eru? Or did his Catholic beliefs compel him to do this and, yet at the same time, require him to make Eru no more than a "minor, irritable" character, because of the difficulties of writing in a pre-revelation world?

Anyone out there....I am truly curious about this.

[davem]

You genuinely expect that from a religious person? To put God in a frame? May I ask if you are theist?

I think you lose sight of spiritual meaning the myth has for Tolkien, that of returning us to an un-fallen state, of a more special communion. I hardly see how this can be achieved by rationalising God. Of course, that may not suit some critics. They way Eru is presented is not a literary flaw, but a religious necessity; I would venture so far as to say even a philosophical one - who can put transcendence into words?

I expect it from an author.

LotR is not a religious work. It is, first & foremost, as Tolkien stated in the Foreword to LotR, an 'entertainment'. The point is that Eru is both transcendent (in which aspect he cannot be judged) & immanent (in which aspect he can).

You mean Manwe would have made more sense if he would have kept Melkor indefinitely, despite the initial judgement? What sort of justice is that?? What could have justified such an arbitrary change of thought? Please explain.

'Arbitrary'? He knew Melkor was still dangerous, he was not certain that he wouldn't go back to his old ways. If he was smart he wouldn't have set any limit on Melkor's terms of imprisonment at all.

If you really believe that God here is reffered to by Tolkien only as Eru, I really don't know how to convince you; you seem to disregard again the spiritual underlying of his myth making.

I choose to believe that Tolkien was only referring to Eru - because if he really believed that it would only confirm to me that he was failing to seperate the primary & secondary worlds in his own mind - something I think it would be wise for us all to do. Eru is a character invented by Tolkien, & plays the role of creator within the secondary world. To think of Eru as in anyway equivalent to the creator of the primary world is, in my opinion, crossing a very dangerous line. Where do you stop - is it only the creator of M-e that you consider as equivalent to God, or do you consider the creator figures in other fantasies as also equivalent. Of course, to my mind, once you start thinking of LotR as a Christian work that line is too easy to cross, & its an area I will not stray into, caonsidering my sanity, such as it is, too precious.

Eru may, or may not, reflect Tolkien's own thoughts on the nature of God, but it is a step too far for the reader to consider them as equivalent in any way. If God is a transcendent mystery then Tolkien would have inevitably had a limited perception of him, & one can question the extent to which he was correct, but that is a very different thing to considering them 'the same thing'.

[Raynor]

Was he aware of the potential outcry from some readers about the "unjust" nature of Eru's act given what happened in Numenor?

At least from Christians, this reaction should, theoretically, not come. The Bible describes what happens to the two cities of Sodoma and Gomora, whose people were considered sinful. Howeve, can the sins of the inhabitants of those cities ever compare to what the numenoreans did to others (torture, slavery, sacrifice to Melkor) and to themselves (slaying each other in madness), while disregarding each and every sign to repent? Or what would persons like minded with Thomas Jefferson, who said that "from time to time, the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots". I believe that the corruption in Numenor was so great among the un-faithful, that they were beyond redemption; possibly, that corruption spiritually and phiscially affected even those who were too young. Concerning the biblical deluge, it is said: "and God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually". It may be that Numenor was rotten to the core; for good reason did Tolkien call Elendil a Noachian figure, he may have been among the few who escaped this dire marring by true faith, which he later brings to M-E.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Or what would persons like minded with Thomas Jefferson, who said that "from time to time, the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots".

Or with Joseph Stalin who said: "One death is a tragedy, one million is a statistic. "

I believe that the corruption in Numenor was so great among the un-faithful, that they were beyond redemption; possibly, that corruption spiritually and phiscially affected even those who were too young.

So even the children of Numenor were valid targets, & it was acceptable for Eru to kill them? And we, presumably, cannot 'judge' such an action because Eru is a 'mystery'? I take it he 'destroyed the village in order to save it'?

Concerning the biblical deluge, it is said: "and God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually". It may be that Numenor was rotten to the core; for good reason did Tolkien call Elendil a Noachian figure, he may have been among the few who escaped this dire marring by true faith, which he later brings to M-E.

I think it should also be pointed up that not all the Faithful survived the devastation of Numenor - which I suppose is a case of 'Kill them all - God will know his own.'

[Raynor]

I expect it from an author.

Then again, you are putting all authors into one pot, regardless of their opinions. This expectation is uncalled for, imo.

LotR is not a religious work.

Again, ignoring myths as a path to spirituality.

It is, first & foremost, as Tolkien stated in the Foreword to LotR, an 'entertainment'.

Could you give that specific quote??

The point is that Eru is both transcendent (in which aspect he cannot be judged) & immanent (in which aspect he can).

But Eru is nont immanent, he does not inhabit any part of creation, an idea stated repeatedly by Tolkien. So your argument is void in that direction.

I choose to believe that Tolkien was only referring to Eru - because if he really believed that it would only confirm to me that he was failing to seperate the primary & secondary worlds in his own mind

I don't see the logical connection between writting something about God in a fictional setting and inability to differentiate between one's fiction and (perceived) reality.

If God is a transcendent mystery then Tolkien would have inevitably had a limited perception of him, & one can question the extent to which he was correct, but that is a very different thing to considering them 'the same thing'.

How can we conceive two different transcendent realities?? What differentiates them, if at their core both are, well, transcendent?

Or with Joseph Stalin who said: "One death is a tragedy, one million is a statistic. "

The problem with this quote is that it says nothing of the standing of those who died.

I take it he 'destroyed the village in order to save it'?

That is what it seemed; part of Sauron's loss of power is that he spent a great part of it on corrupting Numenor. This is the only possible exit out of that hell; as Tolkien stated, there are certain encounters with evil that cannot be won by mere humans without supplication to God.

I think it should also be pointed up that not all the Faithful survived the devastation of Numenor

And you say that, because?

Originally Posted by Akallabeth

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

[Lalwendë]

Look, we're arguing as though Eru destroyed Numenor because of something done against his will, but that's wrong. Eru detsroyed Numenor because the Valar asked him to, not even that, that Valar pleaded with Eru just to do something.

The Valar had overstepped the mark by giving Men this island which was so temptingly close to the Undying Lands, by idolising Men too much. Then when Men came to act as they inevitably would, wanting to explore the seas and wanting to see what it was about the Undying Lands which gave the inhabitants unending life (to their minds, it was the place which did this, not the inherent nature of the peoples there - the Men of Numenor lacked understanding of immortals just as much as the Immortals lacked any comprehension of mortality) the Valar were powerless to act. They pleaded with Eru, the one who made these creatures, and Eru smote.

He did not do it as those remaining on Numenor were 'evil' themselves - indeed Miriel is perfectly innocent. And I seriously doubt that Tolkien, devoted family man would ever write about children being evil or wicked. The event is not 'just' nor is it 'justified' apart from it is something that the god of this world does. A god who as I have pointed out already is like the God of the Book of Job, a law only unto himself. Rather than punishing the people left on Numenor, he is in fact punishing the Valar who were foolish/proud enough to set up Numenor in the first place.

Nor was the event meant to echo the Noah myth in any way, it was meant to be Atlantean. The only part which echoes the Noah story is the escape of Elendil and the Faithful, which Tolkien calls "a kind of Noachian situation". The rest of it, this whole, huge, overbearing and memorable story, is drawn from something Atlantean. It comes from Tolkien's own mind, from his own recurring nightmares, something which he squarely points down to being common amongst those who live near the Sea and those in Western Europe. I know exactly what he means - I grew up with exactly the same kinds of tales of drowned lands and fears of the lands being drowned once more.

So while we're all scratching away at some kind of Biblical analogy, meaning or comprehension to all of this we are looking in precisely the wrong place. This really has very little to do with what Eru and the valar are really like, little to do with whether the babies drowned at Numenor were evil, and a whole lot to do with Atlantis.

Some quotes:

Originally Posted by Letter 154

The particular 'myth' which lies behind this tale, and the mood both of Men and Elves at this time, is the Downfall of Númenor: a special variety of the Atlantis tradition. That seems to me so fundamental to 'mythical history' -- whether is has any kind of basis in real history, pace Saurat and others, is not relevant -- that some version of it would have to come in

Originally Posted by Letter 163

for I have what some might call an Atlantis complex. Possibly inherited, though my parents died too young for me to know such things about them, and too young to transfer such things by words. Inherited from me (I suppose) by one only of my children, though I did not know that about my son until recently, and he did not know it about me. I mean the terrible recurrent dream (beginning with memory) of the Great Wave, towering up, and coming in ineluctably over the trees and green fields. (I bequeathed it to Faramir.) I don't think I have had it since I wrote the 'Downfall of Númenor' as the last of the legends of the First and Second Age.

Originally Posted by Letter 180

For when Faramir speaks of his private vision of the Great Wave, he speaks for me. That vision and dream has been ever with me -- and has been inherited (as I only discovered recently) by one of my children

Originally Posted by Letter 227

The legends of Númenórë are only in the background of The Lord of the Rings ... They are my own use for my own purposes of the Atlantis legend, but not based on special knowledge, but on a special personal concern with this tradition of the culture-bearing men of the Sea which so profoundly affected the imagination of peoples of Europe with westward-shores.

Originally Posted by Letter 257

What I might call my Atlantis-haunting. This legend or myth or dim memory of some ancient history has always troubled me. In sleep I had the dreadful dream of the ineluctable Wave, either coming out of the quiet sea, or coming in towering over the green inlands. It still occurs occasionally, though now exorcized by writing about it. It always ends by surrender, and I awake gasping out of deep water. I used to draw it or write bad poems about it. When C. S. Lewis and I tossed up, and he was to write on space-travel and I on time-travel, I began an abortive book of time-travel of which the end was to be the presence of my hero in the drowning of Atlantis. This was to be called Númenor, the Land in the West.

Originally Posted by Child

To put it bluntly, did Tolkien blow it by giving us tiny glimpses of deity or reflected deity in one part of the narrative and pulling back in others so that we are ultimately left with unaswered questions. If the author truly wanted to keep "religion" out of his created world, as he certainly stated at one point, then why start the whole thing off with Eru? Or did his Catholic beliefs compel him to do this and, yet at the same time, require him to make Eru no more than a "minor, irritable" character, because of the difficulties of writing in a pre-revelation world?

Really the most obvious answer is that anyone writing a mythical saga would not want to miss out the Coolest Bit Of All: the chance to write your very own creation myth. I'm not religious and I too would be champing at the bit to get some god/creator action going on. Tolkien didn't put Eru in because he was a Catholic but because he was a writer.

[davem]

Again, ignoring myths as a path to spirituality.

Tolkien's work is not a 'mythology'. A mythology is the work of a people over millenia. Whatever Tolkien produced it is not technically a 'mythology'.

Could you give that specific quote??

As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none....The Lord of the Rings has been read by many people since it finally appeared in print; and I should like to say something here with reference to the many opinions or guesses that I have received or have read concerning the motives and meaning of the tale. The prime motive was the desire of a tale-teller to try his hand at a really long story that would hold the attention of readers, amuse them, delight them, and at times maybeexcite them or deeply move them.

I don't see the logical connection between writting something about God in a fictional setting and inability to differentiate between one's fiction and (perceived) reality.

Which assumes that Tolkien was writing something about God in a fictional setting, of course. And even if he was the reader is not required to accept, let alone agree with, what the author says. And if the author gives us a work of fiction rather than a work of theology, one must assume he wanted it to be read as a story, not a work of theology.

The problem with this quote is that it says nothing of the standing of those who died.

So killing a million 'bad' people is OK?. Tolkien seemed to consider the fall of Numenor & the deaths involved to be a tragedy. You seem to be shrugging your shoulders & saying its OK.

That is what it seemed; part of Sauron's loss of power is that he spent a great part of it on corrupting Numenor. This is the only possible exit out of that hell; as Tolkien stated, there are certain encounters with evil that cannot be won by mere humans without supplication to God.

And yet Eru spared Sauron (& the Orcs & other servants of Sauron btw - whose attrocities far exceeded those of the Numenoreans). I don't see where 'Hell' comes into M-e - where it is never mentioned as a metaphysical reality.

And you say that, because?

The last leaders of the Faithful, Elendil and his sons, escaped from the Downfall with nine ships, bearing a seedling of Nimloth, and the Seven Seeing-stones (gifts of the Eldar to their House)

The idea that the whole of the faithful of Numenor could gather together in one place (& fit themselves into 9 ships) without being noticed is hardly credible.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Originally Posted by Lal

The Valar had overstepped the mark by giving Men this island which was so temptingly close to the Undying Lands, by idolising Men too much. Then when Men came to act as they inevitably would, wanting to explore the seas and wanting to see what it was about the Undying Lands which gave the inhabitants unending life (to their minds, it was the place which did this, not the inherent nature of the peoples there - the Men of Numenor lacked understanding of immortals just as much as the Immortals lacked any comprehension of mortality) the Valar were powerless to act. They pleaded with Eru, the one who made these creatures, and Eru smote.

But let us not forget Sauron's influence. Did that encourage what happened or speed it up? Personally, I am not sure... The whole of Numenor was not corrupted for there still were those who were faithful. Rather like the story of Sodom and Gomorrah from Genesis, it seems that the faithful are brought out before the destruction of the land and they go on living in Middle Earth.

[Raynor]

Look, we're arguing as though Eru destroyed Numenor because of something done against his will, but that's wrong. Eru detsroyed Numenor because the Valar asked him to, not even that, that Valar pleaded with Eru just to do something.

But the second requires the first; I doubt Eru would proceed to any action, esspecially one of destruction, if there weren't good reasons, no matter the status of those who make the supplication.

He did not do it as those remaining on Numenor were 'evil' themselves - indeed Miriel is perfectly innocent.

COndoning acts of evil does not amount to innocence. And Sauron didn't just tell lies, he used his demonic power to corrupt the very beings.

And I seriously doubt that Tolkien, devoted family man would ever write about children being evil or wicked.

Though childrens in Gondor do play as orcs in The New Shadow.

The event is not 'just' nor is it 'justified' apart from it is something that the god of this world does.

Rooting out evil is just and justified. This was not a random act; it ended thraldom to evil to both oppressors and oppressed.

he is in fact punishing the Valar who were foolish/proud enough to set up Numenor in the first place.

How?

Nor was the event meant to echo the Noah myth in any way, it was meant to be Atlantean. The only part which echoes the Noah story is the escape of Elendil and the Faithful, which Tolkien calls "a kind of Noachian situation".

Atlantis and the deluge are not mutually exclusive, esspecially given your quote from his letter #156; quite the contrary case can be made rather powerfully. And Tolkien calls Elendil a Noachian figure in Letter #131.

So while we're all scratching away at some kind of Biblical analogy, meaning or comprehension to all of this we are looking in precisely the wrong place.

This biblical analogy was reffered to by Tolkien specifically; plus what I said above. Also, the deluge is something imprinted in the subsconscious of all humanity, although you are probably right it is more at the surface in certain areas.

Tolkien's work is not a 'mythology'. A mythology is the work of a people over millenia. Whatever Tolkien produced it is not technically a 'mythology'.

Well, I didn't say mythology, but myths; aslo, if we are to understand mythology as a body of myths, then he did produce it. Further I don't think your qualifier "produced over millenia" is necessary, but that is beside the point anyway.

amuse them, delight them, and at times maybeexcite them or deeply move them.

Delightment, excitement and moving signifies, to me, much more than entertainment (a word he didn't use) but (the making, road to) eucatastrophe.

Which assumes that Tolkien was writing something about God in a fictional setting, of course. And even if he was the reader is not required to accept, let alone agree with, what the author says. And if the author gives us a work of fiction rather than a work of theology, one must assume he wanted it to be read as a story, not a work of theology.

Ok; what was Tolkien writing about when he made more or less specific, direct, refferences to Eru? And, if he was talking about a transcendent reality, I ask again how could that be different that what he conceived of God? How can two transcedent realities differ? Also, to presume that one's spirituality can't be reflected in a book, and increase its value, and be perceived as such, is, well, presumptuous.

So killing a million 'bad' people is OK?

We are not talking about everyday 'bad' people. I am not going to repeat in each and every post their sins and horrible deeds. By their corruption, they were brought to a human's lowest possible level. And if one does in the sanctity of one's house doesn't concern others, it was not the case with them. They were spreading their corruption towards all of Middle Earth, esspecially in the west; and considering Sauron's powerful grip on the east, this would just have brought all humankind to its knees, probably forever. It also became a threat to his other kindred, the elves, even in Aman; they had to retreat from their ages old homes, to the protection of the valar, but even Valinor was endangered with destruction. You cannot ignore a problem of this level. And I believe that Eru did what was the closest to their redemption, by ending their thraldom to evil. They ignored everything else. But they could not be ignored anymore.

And yet Eru spared Sauron

Because he stated in the letters that not even the crreator can destroy a fea.

the Orcs & other servants of Sauron btw - whose attrocities far exceeded those of the Numenoreans

I am curious, what more evil deeds did all of these do that "far exceeded" the numenorean actions?

I don't see where 'Hell' comes into M-e - where it is never mentioned as a metaphysical reality.

But it is very real to those who experienced Utumno or Angband, and probably Mordor too, later, as evil is manifest in this world.

The idea that the whole of the faithful of Numenor could gather together in one place (& fit themselves into 9 ships) without being noticed is hardly credible.

It would fit however with the legend of Lot and his family escaping from their town before they were destroyed; and it was made specifically clear that the valar intervened to get them safe to shore. I would also like to know if you have any evidence that there were more faithtfulls than those who made it to the ships.

[davem]

Well, I just spent about an hour anwsering your point & lost the post & I can't face doing it all over, so I'll be brief here.

[QUOTE=Raynor]
And Sauron didn't just tell lies, he used his demonic power to corrupt the very beings.

This is to imply that Sauron was wholly responsible for the Numenoreans corruption. Which makes Eru's action even more unacceptable. The Numenoreans come across as victims in this scenario. One cannot assume all the Numenoreans were evil - many quite possibly went along out of fear for themselves & their families.

One cannot read the account of the Akallabeth in the same way post Hiroshima. The destruction of Numenor would have traumatised generations, & created a fear of Eru - which Eru must have realised.

Though childrens in Gondor do play as orcs in The New Shadow.

Because they were innocent & didn't realise what they were doing - which was Tolkien's point.

Well, I didn't say mythology, but myths; aslo, if we are to understand mythology as a body of myths, then he did produce it. Further I don't think your qualifier "produced over millenia" is necessary, but that is beside the point anyway.

Its still not a myth. A myth is the 'story' behind an actual religion, & reflected the worldview of an entire culture. What Tolkien produced was a pseudo-mythology. But in the end it is a work of fiction.

Delightment, excitement and moving signifies, to me, much more than entertainment (a word he didn't use)

Maybe he had a thesaurus.

Ok; what was Tolkien writing about when he made more or less specific, direct, refferences to Eru? And, if he was talking about a transcendent reality, I ask again how could that be different that what he conceived of God? How can two transcedent realities differ? Also, to presume that one's spirituality can't be reflected in a book, and increase its value, and be perceived as such, is, well, presumptuous.

Its a story. If Tolkien had wanted to 'do a Lewis' & write Christian apologetics, or 'reveal the ways of God to man' he would have done so. In any case, by writing a story he invites the reader to take it as a story, & not a sermon.

Because he stated in the letters that not even the crreator can destroy a fea.
I am curious, what more evil deeds did all of these do that "far exceeded" the numenorean actions?

He could have simply done with Sauron what was done with Melkor & removed him to the void - except that he needed Sauron for LotR, so he had to invent a reason for keeping him around in the world - a pretty unconvincing one if you ask me.

But it is very real to those who experienced Utumno or Angband, and probably Mordor too, later, as evil is manifest in this world.

I stated Hell did not exist in M-e as a metaphysical reality.

It would fit however with the legend of Lot and his family escaping from their town before they were destroyed; and it was made specifically clear that the valar intervened to get them safe to shore. I would also like to know if you have any evidence that there were more faithtfulls than those who made it to the ships.

It states the Valar intervened to get the safely to the shores of M-e after the devastation, not that they intervened to get them to the harbours of Numenor. Being that the devastation happened without warning one can only logically assume that those of the faithful who escaped were the lucky ones. And given that many 'evil' Numenoreans in the cities on M-e were not wiped out one can only assume that many faithful Numenoreans died & many unfaithful ones didn't. In which case, one has to ask, why didn't Eru wipe out all the 'sinful' Numenoreans. As far as I'm aware the ships only carried those of the House of Elros (ie of the Royal Blood), so unless we posit that only the aristocrats remained faithful we have a problem. One must question whether, given that only nine ships escaped, the totality of the faithful were so small in number (even given Sauron's depredations).

[Raynor]

This is to imply that Sauron was wholly responsible for the Numenoreans corruption.

That is to ignore all the previous actions of the numenoreans; they already resorted to oppressing, they stopped following the old ways, respecting the valar and their status, or the offerings to Eru. Three great numenorean lords became ringwraiths. They punished those who welcomed the elven ships. All these happened before Sauron came to Numenor.

Given the adulation of their ancestry, their knowledge of who Sauron truly was would have been second only to the elves, yet they still suffered him in their country, suffered him near their king, suffered his evil teachings - which, to those who were still good, the faithful, they were abominations. Their observance of true faith was a shield to Sauron. The others, welcomed him. Not to resist Sauron and his doings (through observance of rules - let us remember that in the Atrabeth Eru said : "Call on me and I shall hear, for I am watching over you") means assenting. There can't be a middle way for a moral person. Numenoreans weren't victims, they were accessories, if not perpetrators of Sauron's corruption in Numenor. One cannot expect salvation from God if one welcomes (while one still can welcome) evil.

Because they were innocent & didn't realise what they were doing - which was Tolkien's point.

His _stated_ point for the story was Man's satiety with good - hence his propensity towards evil. May I ask if you read it?

Its still not a myth. A myth is the 'story' behind an actual religion, & reflected the worldview of an entire culture.

Then again, even if we accept this as the general definition (I particulary don't, and I would like to see an official definition), we must take into account what myth was for Tolkien in particular. He saw myth-making as a modern day too activity, with a significant spiritual potential. And that is the relevant aspect of Tolkien's myths in regards to the relation between Eru and God.

Maybe he had a thesaurus.

That's a cryptic statement to me, as a non native English speaker, and I suppose it was meant to be sarcastic. Perhaps you could be kind enough to state your argument in more detail.

Its a story. If Tolkien had wanted to 'do a Lewis' & write Christian apologetics, or 'reveal the ways of God to man' he would have done so. In any case, by writing a story he invites the reader to take it as a story, & not a sermon.

This would ignore one of his main concerns: writting about fundamental subjects in essence, not in form - his struggle with allegory.

He could have simply done with Sauron what was done with Melkor & removed him to the void - except that he needed Sauron for LotR, so he had to invent a reason for keeping him around in the world - a pretty unconvincing one if you ask me.

Sauron was a problem that Men had to deal with; it was mainly the numenoreans who dealt with him, either at the end of the second or the third age - with direct help from high elves and istari. Later, Men would face other incarnations of evil, but none of mythological status - but they also won't have mythological aide by their side (such as istari, or, arguably, elves). The level of struggle decreases in time, but it is balanced - esspecially if true allegiance to Eru is observed.

I stated Hell did not exist in M-e as a metaphysical reality.

Metaphysical as in what? Non-material, "spiritual"? We also have the second world, of the spirits, in which wraiths and apparently elves access. I am sure Sauron too has power there too, as elves have too. It is said in the Silmarillion that Sauron was threatened by Luthien by something that can only be described as a non-material hell ("'There everlastingly thy naked self shall endure the torment of his scorn, pierced by his eyes, unless thou yield to me the mastery of thy tower"). Anyway, I am looking forward to your clarification.

It states the Valar intervened to get the safely to the shores of M-e after the devastation, not that they intervened to get them to the harbours of Numenor.

The original statement was: "by grace of the Valar Elendil and his sons and their people were spared from the ruin of that day". The particularisation of your interpretation, that they were helped only in the voyage, but not in escaping, doesn't stem from this, esspecially immediately since after the "grace of the valar" statement it is said how Elendil escaped the soldiers. Also, it was Amandil's design, shared to the faithfuls, that they should prepare to escape.

[Elmo]

It would fit however with the legend of Lot and his family escaping from their town before they were destroyed; and it was made specifically clear that the valar intervened to get them safe to shore. I would also like to know if you have any evidence that there were more faithtfulls than those who made it to the ships.

Three words - Miriel, Miriel and Miriel!

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by hewhoarisesinmight

Three words - Miriel, Miriel and Miriel!

I don't think I need to repeat my argument that condoning Sauron's evil amounts to accepting it.

Too late she strove to ascend the steep ways of the Meneltarma to the holy place

Now, obviously, "too late" doesn't mean that if she was running from the waves sooner that might have saved her - but that if she would have repented of her evil ways some time sooner, it might not have been too late.