# Eru's role



## Ithrynluin (Oct 1, 2005)

This is a somewhat philosophical subject that I would like to gather a few thoughts on.

Why should the (good) peoples of Middle-earth be obedient to Eru, or at least act in accord with his 'rules and regulations' (or those of the Valar)? Only out of fear of his reprisal?

What is the point of all the sorrow and evil the people of Middle-earth have had to go through? 

Is the whole History of Arda but one big cosmic play for the amusement of Eru, and all the Elves and Men merely players?


----------



## Thorondor_ (Oct 1, 2005)

As Tolkien says in Letter #153:


> I do not see how even in the primary world any theologian or philosopher, unless very much better informed about the relation of spirit and body than I believe anyone to be, could deny the possibility of re-incarnation as a mode of existence, prescribed for certain kinds of rational incarnate creatures


Thus, if there is reincarnation, then there is the possibility/necessity to repent for past evil deeds (or to enjoy the fruits of the good deeds).


> Is the whole History of Arda but one big cosmic play for the amusement of Eru, and all the Elves and Men merely players?


I would slightly rephrase it. In the same letter, he says that subcreation is a tribute to the "infinity of His potential variety". Thus, we complete His work. (And I would say that (some of) the elves had (at times) even less fun than humans, and that I believe the elves to have even less free will than the Atani do).

P.S. This thread is a bit complementary to this topic.


----------



## Walter (Oct 1, 2005)

Ithrynluin said:


> Why should the (good) peoples of Middle-earth be obedient to Eru, or at least act in accord with his 'rules and regulations' (or those of the Valar)?


Do we know whether or not this is asked of them? 



> What is the point of all the sorrow and evil the people of Middle-earth have had to go through?


Depends on what you call a "point". Tolkien, IIRC, makes it clear that Middle-earth is a pre-christian society and in his essay "Beowulf - The Monsters and the Critics" he elaborates some on the characteristics of such societies.

Edit: It should be noted, that the thoughts Tolkien puts forth in this essay only appy to the regions of Europe and the Levante and the - relatively short - period beginning roughly with the Iron-age (and the final take-over of the old matriarchal and matrilinear societies by the intruding partiarchal Indo-European tribes and their warrior gods) and ending with the final breakthrough of the patriarchal, monotheistic religions in these regions.



> Is the whole History of Arda but one big cosmic play for the amusement of Eru, and all the Elves and Men merely players?


This question, IMO, is inseparably linked to the same question regarding our real world. One doesn't have to be a prophet to foretell that this question begs for some religious discussion that will constantly tempt the participants to eat the fruits of the "forbidden tree" of TTF...

But then who will - in the event - get all the blame for the outcome, I wonder? - Snake?


----------



## Gothmog (Oct 1, 2005)

Ok, a couple of thoughts on the matter.

In what way do the peoples of Middle-earth either ‘good’ or not ‘good’ have to be obedient to Eru?

Has Eru given any ‘rules and regulations?

It seems to me that Eru gave only a basic theme that gave the beginning and the end. What comes in between is down to the Valar and the Children of Ilúvatar. In the theme of Eru there would have been no choice and therefore no need of ‘free will’. However, he then gave the Ainur the freedom to amend this theme each according to his/her ability and temperament. This introduced choice of path for the Children. To follow a particular path one would have to follow the rules and regulations of that path. Therefore one would be following either a path associated with Manwë or with Melkor. The Will of Eru is for the glory of the creation. Both sides contribute to this glory.

It would seem that the whole point of the sorrow and evil that the peoples of Arda have to go through is to create something even more glorious than any of the Ainur could foresee. Perhaps more so than Eru himself could do.

Yes it would appear that it is one big play. And perhaps it is only for Eru’s amusement, however, it may be for more than this. Eru created the ‘Theme’, the Ainur added to it creating the ‘Music’ which was greater than the sum of its parts. The final glory would be increased by the choices of the Firstborn and the additions and choices of the Secondborn. So the purpose of the one big play may well be to create something that Eru could not do himself.


----------



## Ithrynluin (Oct 1, 2005)

Walter said:


> Do we know whether or not this is asked of them?



Not explicitly. But was not Melkor disobedient and eventually punished by Eru (or Manwe his vice-regent in Arda) for it?



Walter said:


> This question, IMO, is inseparably linked to the same question regarding our real world. One doesn't have to be a prophet to foretell that this question begs for some religious discussion that will constantly tempt the participants to eat the fruits of the "forbidden tree" of TTF...



Indeed. And participants are free to make use of real life religion as a means of comparison with Tolkien's world, but not as a standalone subject.



Gothmog said:


> In what way do the peoples of Middle-earth either ‘good’ or not ‘good’ have to be obedient to Eru?
> 
> Has Eru given any ‘rules and regulations?



I did not necessarily mean obedience _directly_ to Eru himself, since that can hardly be measured and almost noone has the ability to address Eru personally. Rather, I meant obedience to him via the Valar, though this mostly concerns the Elves, since Men had no contact with the Ainur of Aman. But in the case of Men it can be claimed that when Eru spoke to them in the days of their youth (_The Tale of Adanel, HoME X_), he must have laid down some ground rules, so to speak, and after most of them abjured Eru and chose Melkor instead, Iluvatar spoke to them for the last time telling them he will shorten their lives, clearly telling them what they should be doing, or whom they should obey. Of course we must keep in mind that this is a mannish legend, but nonetheless I believe there is some truth to it.

About rules and regulations, Eru must have instructed the Valar as to what their rule should be like, how they should deal with the Children, et cetera. So it could be said that 'rules' proceed from Eru, go through the Valar to Elves and from them to Men.

Clearly Eru prefers his creatures to act one way, the right way, so to speak, rather than another.



Gothmog said:


> Therefore one would be following either a path associated with Manwë or with Melkor.



Is there none inbetween? Must one of Eru's creatures who lives a life of goodness be aware of Eru, or even acknowledge or praise him, for Eru to be satisfied with this individual, or not punish him?



Gothmog said:


> Both sides contribute to this glory.



If both sides contribute to it, why should 'evil' be punished then?  



Gothmog said:


> So the purpose of the one big play may well be to create something that Eru could not do himself.



Is that not a contradiction, i.e. God being omnipotent?


----------



## Gothmog (Oct 1, 2005)

Ithrynluin said:


> I did not necessarily mean obedience directly to Eru himself, since that can hardly be measured and almost noone has the ability to address Eru personally. Rather, I meant obedience to him via the Valar, though this mostly concerns the Elves, since Men had no contact with the Ainur of Aman. But in the case of Men it can be claimed that when Eru spoke to them in the days of their youth (The Tale of Adanel, HoME X), he must have laid down some ground rules, so to speak, and after most of them abjured Eru and chose Melkor instead, Iluvatar spoke to them for the last time telling them he will shorten their lives, clearly telling them what they should be doing, or whom they should obey. Of course we must keep in mind that this is a mannish legend, but nonetheless I believe there is some truth to it.
> 
> About rules and regulations, Eru must have instructed the Valar as to what their rule should be like, how they should deal with the Children, et cetera. So it could be said that 'rules' proceed from Eru, go through the Valar to Elves and from them to Men.
> 
> ...


Other than the Tale of Adanel there seems to be no link between Eru and his children. Even there, Eru only seems to have laid down one ‘ground rule’ Learn For Yourselves.

Strange way of telling someone what they should be doing. Nothing before hand and then shortening their lives and giving no option to change.

No Eru only needed to give the Theme. It was the Ainur that gave the paths and therefore the rules.

Where is it clear that Eru prefers his creatures to act one way? He states more than once that any action will only redound to the glory of the creation.


Ithrynluin said:


> Is there none inbetween? Must one of Eru's creatures who lives a life of goodness be aware of Eru, or even acknowledge or praise him, for Eru to be satisfied with this individual, or not punish him?


Where does it show Eru punishing or rewarding any of his creatures? Eru it would seem would be satisfied with his creatures simply for adding to the glory of Arda. As for ‘Inbetween’ what do you mean? In Arda the personification of ‘Good’ is Manwë and Melkor is his opposite. The paths of choice for the Children would be associated in varying degrees to one side or the other. Some paths would be in the middle and would be hard to see with which side they originate.


Ithrynluin said:


> If both sides contribute to it, why should 'evil' be punished then?


Who is it that punishes evil? We can only see the actions of the Valar. Since there is no evidence that Eru has punished any one, not even Melkor.

The problem with both ‘Good’ and ‘Evil’ is that they only apply within Arda. Even Manwë acknowledges that their definition of good and evil is not Eru’s.


Ithrynluin said:


> Is that not a contradiction, i.e. God being omnipotent?


Where does it mention God? Eru is a different being to the Christian God or indeed any other God of the Real World. However, Eru as an individual may well have problems creating Arda because of a single viewpoint. By creating the Ainur and his Children he could then cause to be created something from multiple viewpoints thereby something that he could not do by himself.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Oct 1, 2005)

> I did not necessarily mean obedience _directly_ to Eru himself, since that can hardly be measured and almost noone has the ability to address Eru personally


He does say however (Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth)
"The Voice said: 'You are my children. I have sent you to dwell here. In time you will inherit all this Earth, but first you must be children and learn. Call on me and I shall hear; for I am watching over you" (definetly one of my favorite quotes)


> About rules and regulations, Eru must have instructed the Valar as to what their rule should be like, how they should deal with the Children, et cetera. So it could be said that 'rules' proceed from Eru, go through the Valar to Elves and from them to Men.


I agree; apparently, Manwe's task was: 


Osanwe kenta said:


> The office of the Elder King was to retain all his subjects in the allegiance of Eru, or to bring them back to it, and in that allegiance to leave them free





> Where is it clear that Eru prefers his creatures to act one way?


There is this quote from Myths transformed:


> Every finite creature must have some weakness: that is some inadequacy to deal with some situations. It is not sinful when not willed, and when the creature does his best (even if it is not what should be done) as he sees it - with the conscious intent of serving Eru





> Strange way of telling someone what they should be doing. Nothing before hand and then shortening their lives and giving no option to change


It is said, however, in Letter #212:


> A divine 'punishment' is also a divine 'gift', if accepted, since its object is ultimate blessing, and the supreme inventiveness of the Creator will make 'punishments' (that is changes of design) produce a good not otherwise to be attained: a 'mortal' Man has probably (an Elf would say) a higher if unrevealed destiny than a longeval one





> Where does it mention God?


In the Letter #131:


> The cycles begin with a cosmogonical myth: the Music of the Ainur. God and the Valar (or powers: Englished as gods) are revealed


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Oct 2, 2005)

Ithrynluin said:


> This is a somewhat philosophical subject that I would like to gather a few thoughts on.
> 
> Why should the (good) peoples of Middle-earth be obedient to Eru, or at least act in accord with his 'rules and regulations' (or those of the Valar)? Only out of fear of his reprisal?
> 
> ...



I would LOVE to get into that subject with you, but it leads straight into a discussion of God and religion — _ und daß ist verboten!_

Barley


----------



## Thorondor_ (Oct 2, 2005)

> I would LOVE to get into that subject with you, but it leads straight into a discussion of God and religion — _ und daß ist verboten!_


Das ist nich verboten 


Ithrynluin said:


> And participants are free to make use of real life religion as a means of comparison with Tolkien's world, but not as a standalone subject.


----------



## Gothmog (Oct 2, 2005)

Thorondor_ said:


> I agree; apparently, Manwe's task was:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes and it was Melkor’s office to oppose the Elder King in all things. This Eru seemed quite happy with before making Arda.


Thorondor_ said:


> There is this quote from Myths transformed:
> 
> 
> 
> > Every finite creature must have some weakness: that is some inadequacy to deal with some situations. It is not sinful when not willed, and when the creature does his best (even if it is not what should be done) as he sees it - with the conscious intent of serving Eru


However, Eru also says in the Ainulindalë



> And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, *nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument* in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined.


So all serve Eru Conscious or un-Conscious. 


Thorondor_ said:


> It is said, however, in Letter #212:
> 
> 
> 
> > A divine 'punishment' is also a divine 'gift', if accepted, since its object is ultimate blessing, and the supreme inventiveness of the Creator will make 'punishments' (that is changes of design) produce a good not otherwise to be attained: a 'mortal' Man has probably (an Elf would say) a higher if unrevealed destiny than a longeval one


Therefore Eru neither punishes nor rewards. 


Thorondor_ said:


> In the Letter #131:
> 
> 
> 
> > The cycles begin with a cosmogonical myth: the Music of the Ainur. God and the Valar (or powers: Englished as gods) are revealed


You missed a bit. 


> The cycles begin with a cosmogonical myth: the Music of the Ainur. God and the Valar (or powers: Englished as gods) are revealed. These latter are as we should say angelic powers, whose function is to exercise delegated authority in their spheres (of rule and government, not creation, making or re-making). They are 'divine', that is, were originally 'outside' and existed 'before' the making of the world. Their power and wisdom is derived from their Knowledge of the cosmogonical drama, which they perceived first as a drama (that is as in a fashion we perceive a story composed by some-one else), and later as a 'reality'. On the side of mere narrative device, this is, of course, meant to provide beings of the same order of beauty, power, and majesty as the 'gods' of higher mythology, which can yet be accepted – well, shall we say baldly, by a mind that believes in the Blessed Trinity


The LotR and the Sil are not Allegorical and therefore as we can see from the quote you used, Tolkien never meant for Eru to equal God. Eru and the Valar are somewhere between the Christian God and the gods of higher mythology. So God is not mentioned in the Stories and only mentioned in comparison otherwise.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Oct 2, 2005)

> > However, Eru also says in the Ainulindalë
> 
> 
> And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, *nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument* in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined.


True, but Atani "should have a virtue to shape their life, amid the powers and chances of the world, beyond the Music of the Ainur, which is as fate to all things else". And it could be said that the quote you gave reffers only to the shaping of the music by Ainur.


> Therefore Eru neither punishes nor rewards


I agree; a better term would be "indirect" teaching/helping.


> The LotR and the Sil are not Allegorical and therefore as we can see from the quote you used, Tolkien never meant for Eru to equal God. Eru and the Valar are somewhere between the Christian God and the gods of higher mythology. So God is not mentioned in the Stories and only mentioned in comparison otherwise.


I still think Eru is the equal of God (though not as sure as before  ):


Letter#325 said:


> The angelic immortals (incarnate only at their own will), the valar or regents under God, and others of the same order but less power and majesty needed no transport, unless they for a time remained incarnate, and they could, if allowed or commanded, return





Letter#142 said:


> The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision



EDIT: I think that the following quote is also helpful to this thread (Letter#310):
"(But these are only answers to the smaller question) To the larger there is no answer, because that requires a complete knowledge of God, which is unattainable. If we ask why God included us in his Design, we can really say no more than because He Did."


----------



## Walter (Oct 2, 2005)

Tolkien's legendarium per se takes place in an entirely pagan world. But this world, however, is superimposed by the author with an omnipotent omniscient all-creator god. But this god does not really transcede the creation, rather, it reminds me of e.g. Snorri's prologue to the _Gylfaginning_ where in the first line we learn that _"Almighty God created heaven and earth..."_ and then the author tries to explain the quasi superstitious belief in the pagan deities he is introducing lateron. 

The Silmarillion in many aspects parallels existing pagan mythologies, namely Germanic/Northern, Greek and those of the Levante but other influences e.g. the Finnish Kalevala are as easily recognized. Tolkien has - as he was at pains to explain to his Jesuite friend Father Robert Murray - carefully avoided direct references to religion, cult or worshipping in his Middle-earth.

And this is why - IMO - at least the first question raised in this thread, somehow misses the point. Moreover, IMO, Eru plays no role within Eä.

The second and third invite to interesting discussions on speculative grounds, which will have to be based mostly on the authors comments, as well as his later attempt to provide a more sophisticated physical and metaphysical background for his sub-creation (found in HoMeX). And on parallels to our real world. 

Hence - as I mentioned above - this discussion will probably border the abyss of forbidden territorium on TTF (though I am somewhat surprised by Ithrynluins remark, since it is not very long that he himself deleted posts in part and in total in a similar thread, where I had used such parallels to existing religions to illustrate my point and the discussion had been carried further in the event).


----------



## Gothmog (Oct 2, 2005)

Thorondor_ said:


> True, but Atani "should have a virtue to shape their life, amid the powers and chances of the world, beyond the Music of the Ainur, which is as fate to all things else". And it could be said that the quote you gave reffers only to the shaping of the music by Ainur.


This might be said except that just below the quote you used is the following


> But Ilúvatar knew that Men, being set amid the turmoils of the powers of the world, would stray often, and would not use their gifts in harmony; and he said. '*These too in their time shall find that all that they do redounds at the end only to the glory of my work*.'


So it applies to Men also.


Thorondor_ said:


> I agree; a better term would be "indirect" teaching/helping.


I prefer the term from the other letter you quoted.


> (that is changes of design)





Thorondor_ said:


> I still think Eru is the equal of God (though not as sure as before )


Eru is in many ways comparable to the Christian God. However, comparable is not equal. It is the difference between Allegory and Aplicabilty.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Oct 2, 2005)

> > This might be said except that just below the quote you used is the following
> 
> 
> But Ilúvatar knew that Men, being set amid the turmoils of the powers of the world, would stray often, and would not use their gifts in harmony; and he said. '*These too in their time shall find that all that they do redounds at the end only to the glory of my work*.'


But how are we to interpret this? That Eru directs everyone as, excuse me, a puppet-master? I wouldn't say so. I see "straying" as a counterbalance to ... "something good". Also, Eru being omniscient, could know the actual course of his creation in time (or at least He knew he had the power to alter the course towards harmony). Or, maybe, the glory of his work is the free will of the humans itself.


----------



## Ithrynluin (Oct 2, 2005)

Walter said:


> Hence - as I mentioned above - this discussion will probably border the abyss of forbidden territorium on TTF (though I am somewhat surprised by Ithrynluins remark, since it is not very long that he himself deleted posts in part and in total in a similar thread, where I had used such parallels to existing religions to illustrate my point and the discussion had been carried further in the event).



Walter, if we are thinking of the same thread: You and another member were starting to hijack the discussion which was centered on Tolkien's world and began to discuss, and soon quarrell, almost solely about real life religion, thus steering the thread into waters both off-topic and, more importantly, forbidden as per site rules. Which is why _two_ posts were deleted, one by you, the second by another member. Therefore we must make sure not to stray very far from this topic, though this may limit the scope of discussion somewhat. Just thought I should clarify so there's no confusion.


----------



## Gothmog (Oct 2, 2005)

Thorondor_ said:


> But how are we to interpret this? That Eru directs everyone as, excuse me, a puppet-master? I wouldn't say so. I see "straying" as a counterbalance to ... "something good". Also, Eru being omniscient, could know the actual course of his creation in time (or at least He knew he had the power to alter the course towards harmony). Or, maybe, the glory of his work is the free will of the humans itself.


No Eru does not 'direct everyone as a puppet-master'. However, since all in Arda are bound to Arda, there are only so many choices from which to pick. Even Men, who could create choices that were beyond the Eldar could only do so within the boundaries of Arda. Which also means that the glory of the work is enhanced by the Free Will of Men not the purpose of it.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Oct 2, 2005)

Ithrynluin said:


> And participants are free to make use of real life religion as a means of comparison with Tolkien's world, but not as a standalone subject.



Well, OK, I'll take a shot at that, I'll take that as a challenge... Now I'll have to go back and re-read all those prior posts to see where this thread is going — _**mumble grumble_**

Comes back about 20 minutes later

To begin: I pretty much take the general positions and conclusions that Walter does in his Post #12 in this thread — but not entirely. What I mean by that:

We are dealing, IMO, with a _fiction within a fiction._ Tolkien is a devout Catholic, and for my money, Eru is his version of God, or perhaps the one-third of the Trinity known as The Holy Spirit. Eru copies what we read in the Old Testament: God/Eru creates Reality for his own purposes. On the one hand, Eru says that _whatever_ happens (including evil, evidently) only "redounds" to his own purposes, the depth and subtlety of which renders their understanding by mere mortals, those who go forth on two feet (in this case Elves, Men, Dwarves and Hobbits) impossible. The same thing is said by the God of the Christian bible. And as far as I'm concerned _both_ Eru and what I would call _The Religion of Tolkienism_ that flows from Eru and his creation _as well as_ what the God of the Christian bible — as well as the god(s) of all other religions — have in common is this: _none_ of them are real. They are _all_ figments of man's imagination. This is what makes me so angry when people are out in the world doing atrocities in the name of a fiction.

So to compare Eru with the God of the Christian bible is what I would call comparing one fiction to another. They resemble each other greatly because of Tolkien's deeply heartfelt Catholicism. (Religion has value _when it motivates individuals to be kind, helpful and compassionate._ When it motivates to the opposite, _there is no worse evil than religion,_ sez I.)

Frankly, I like Eru a lot better than Christianity's version of God, because the latter acts like a dysfunctional alcoholic father who eats his young: the jealous God who "has no others before" him, the one who floods the earth, who tries to force a father to make a human sacrifice of his son, who puts an innocent man through bloody hell just to see what his faith meltdown point is, who reigns down fire and brimstone and destroys whole cities, and who later (in the book of Micah) causes "the earth to burn as an oven." (Would you put up with a man who drowns his family or sets his house on fire burning them all alive? A perfect God — jealous???!!) But once Eru states his case at the beginning, _he is never heard from again_ (in _The Hobbit_ and _LOTR),_ which, if we agree that people are meant to have _free will_ is as it should be. But do we have a "perfect God?" Far from it...

We have, both in the case of Eru and Christianity's God, one who _lets something slip right at the beginning, *the fatal flaw:*_ One of the good guys turns bad, or _was_ bad from the beginning. (Can you not see how this is a perfect case of anthropomorphic projection?) In the one case it was Melkor, in the other it was Lucifer. To me, this is _flawed thinking,_ the dead giveaway: _not_ Truth, _but Man's fairy tale,_ written in a desperate, pitiable, pathetic attempt to explain the unexplainable to himself. The whole thing has been around so long that we just accept it. But just because an idea has been around a long time and has woven itself into what Man considers consensual truth doesn't _make_ it truth. We used to think the earth was flat, that the rooster's crow made the sun come up, that we'd never get to the moon, that germs didn't exist — and on and on.

At the time religions first evolved, man was terrified of the forces of nature he couldn't control, and so he envisioned — at first — one God in charge of this, and another one in charge of that: a whole slew of gods _who had to be placated._ If a god needs placating, that means he gets easily pissed off and violent for no reason — like a force of nature — _like a dysfunctional husband/father._ (You will notice that this _angry vengeful God_ is the _trademark_ of all patriarchal religions: Judaism, Christianity, Islam...) So we have to tiptoe around him so as not to set him off — like a volcano — like a hurricane — like a _dysunctional husband/father_ who beats his wife and children — and so forth. (By the way, I'm not picking on Christianity here, but that's the basis for Eru.)

But belief, ah, belief: if we sincerely believe in nonsense, be it religious nonsense or any other kind — then we block out anything out there that gainsays our beliefs, and our ideological radar is constantly on the alert for anything out there that substantiates (or seems to) what we already believe, and which appears to justify it. Our thinking becomes full of denial and distortion, and we become _seriously and dangerously deluded_ — which is the thing that I have against those who would ram their religous hypocricies down my throat. 

The fatal error in Judeo/Christian/Tolkienite thinking is this: God/Eru creates a Reality which is supposedly perfect (having been created by a perfect being), but in actuality inherently flawed (a creation in which something evil gets loose, _beyond his control_) but then says, "That's OK, because in the end, _I intended it."_ This is the fatal flaw of not only Tolkienism, but all religion: God is Man's projection of his dysfunctional self, and he doesn't realize it. 

This is amazing: a perfect God creates a perfect Reality for the express purpose of being _worshipped. Why in the world_ would a "perfect" God need to be *worshipped,* let alone need _anything?_ The answer is that he doesn't. _He doesn't even exist._ But people do, and a well-adjusted person does _not_ go around demanding to be _worshipped,_ and threatening horrible consequences to those who don't comply. _That is the behavior of a dysfunctional *man,* which I say is the model for the God of patriarchal monotheism._ Man is inherently flawed; how can he come up with perfection? Even his notions of perfection are riddled with imperfections. And so, therefore, is Eru. And that's why my Deep Thought is about _behavior_ — it reads: It all comes down to how well you treat yourself and others — which Tolkien, that good man, in his heart knew quite well. And I believe he learned it much more from the horrors of combat than from his religion. I believe that everything he wrote was his _necessary_ therapy to make himself whole again after WW I, and to believe in man's goodness despite what he'd seen on the battlefield.

Barley


----------



## Thorondor_ (Oct 2, 2005)

> Frankly, I like Eru a lot better than Christianity's version of God, because the latter acts like a dysfunctional alcoholic father who eats his young: the jealous God who "has no others before" him, the one who floods the earth, who reigns down fire and brimstone and destroys whole cities, and who later (in the book of Micah) causes "the earth to burn as an oven." (Would you put up with a man who drowns his family or sets his house on fire burning them all alive? A perfect God — jealous???!!)
> ........
> You will notice that this _angry vengeful God_ is the _trademark_ of all patriarchal religions: Judaism, Christianity, Islam..


However,when Eru sent the Numenoreans into the cave of the forgotten and when He drowned Westernesse, His purpose was good and His action "surgical". If we didn't know what was the story behiand Ar-Pharazon, we could say: eww, what the heck happened? But that is not the case. The same could be said about shortening the lives of humans after their fall - as I interpret it, it was a shortening of their misery and not an injustice or cruelty. The way I see it, the terifying aspect of the divinity is destructive only of the lower tendencies of the humans, not of the humans themselves. Kali destroys the limitations of the worshippers, not the worshippers themselves.


> The whole thing has been around so long that we just accept it. But just because an idea has been around a long time and has woven itself into what Man considers consensual truth doesn't _make_ it truth


True, but only as long as it is just an idea. In Arda, Eru revealed himself to the Atani; at least for a while, His existence was a certain fact. The same revelation exists also in other religions; at one point or another, He reveals Himself directly, not through priests or prophets. "Split a piece of wood and you will find me; lift a stone and I will be there; If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is within you and it is outside you".


> The fatal error in Judeo/Christian/Tolkienite thinking is this: God/Eru creates a Reality which is supposedly perfect (having been created by a perfect being), but in actuality inherently flawed (a creation in which something evil gets loose, _beyond his control_)


It's not beyond control; Eru makes this very clear to Melkor.


> a perfect God creates a perfect Reality for the express purpose of being _worshipped. Why in the world_ would a "perfect" God need to be *worshipped,* let alone need _anything?_ The answer is that he doesn't


I think that my previous post with the quote from the letter #310 addresses this rather well.


----------



## Gothmog (Oct 2, 2005)

Well Barley, a very good post but I think that you have gone beyond the scope of this thread. What you are covering seems to be Tolkien’s reasons for writing and The Sil as a whole and in particular why he created Eru as he did. It will take a little while to sort out an answer


----------



## Walter (Oct 2, 2005)

Barley,

what seems so incrompehensible, irrational and contradictional to you, becomes much more comprehensible when we study the development of religious myths (I prefer the term myths over fictions because the former were an outcome of mankinds cultural evolution which eventually led to the development of _logos_ and _nous_). 

The entirely patriarchal creation myths we encounter in the Bible and the Ainulindale represent only the last stage in the transition from an earthbound matriarchal system of an agricultural society - in which originally life/death, good/evil, man/women were but different aspects of a greater whole - towards the patriarchal system (first introduced by the belligerent warrior tribes of the Indo-European semi-nomadic shepherds) which has been firmly established now for nearly two millennia. Earlier transitional stages can be recognized in e.g. Pelasgian or Sumerian/Babylonian creation myths.

Unfortunately these myths were not only retold and passed on, they were also soon being manipulated by those who had the power to do so. Thus in the event the gods of former myths ended as monsters, fallen angels or whatever in the subsequent myths (an effect which is only in part portrayed correctly by Tolkien)

And the surviving Warrior-gods - at first primus inter pares like Marduk, Zeus, Jupiter, Seth, Thor, etc. - eventually became sole survivors: Jahwe, Allah or Iluvatar. But of course during that process they did not lose all of their former - violent - attributes...


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Oct 2, 2005)

Thorondor said:


> However,when Eru sent the Numenoreans into the cave of the forgotten and when He drowned Westernesse, His purpose was good and His action "surgical"...



Somehow I have trouble dealing with the idea of a God who needs to do surgical excision...



> In Arda, Eru revealed himself to the Atani; at least for a while, His existence was a certain fact. The same revelation exists also in other religions; at one point or another, He reveals Himself directly, not through priests or prophets. "Split a piece of wood and you will find me; lift a stone and I will be there; If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is within you and it is outside you".



I do not accept the idea of "revelation" as any more than the contents of Man's mind bubbling up to conscious awareness: the subconscious, having worked in the dark subterranian depths suddenly presents awareness with the finished product. I quite accept the idea of Eru as part of Tolkien's story — "willing suspension of disbelief" and all that — but not beyond that.



Gothmog said:


> Well Barley, a very good post but I think that you have gone beyond the scope of this thread...It will take a little while to sort out an answer



Well by God, Gothy, it warn't fer lack o' tryin'! 



Walter said:


> what seems so incrompehensible, irrational and contradictional to you, becomes much more comprehensible when we study the development of religious myths...
> 
> The entirely patriarchal creation myths we encounter in the Bible and the Ainulindale represent only the last stage in the transition from an earthbound matriarchal system of an agricultural society - in which originally life/death, good/evil, man/women were but different aspects of a greater whole - towards the patriarchal system (first introduced by the belligerent warrior tribes of the Indo-European semi-nomadic shepherds) which has been firmly established now for nearly two millennia.



So patriarchy is the degenerated tail-end of matriarchy? That depresses me even more! 



> Unfortunately these myths were not only retold and passed on, they were also soon being manipulated by those who had the power to do so. Thus in the event the gods of former myths ended as monsters, fallen angels or whatever in the subsequent myths.



Ah yes, religion as a means of manipulation by the powerful — don't get me started!  But what you say above further supports my point: it's _all_ Man seeing his own frailties and not wanting to take the responsibility of his actions — not the divinity he blames it on.

Its a shame that the title of this thread — Eru's Role — hadn't been misspelled as Eru's Roll — then we could have had a perfectly pleasant discussion of baking! 

Barley


----------



## Gothmog (Oct 2, 2005)

Barly

I would put it that it is a Fiction based on a Belief which is somewhat different. Yes Eru is his Version of God however there are a differences. Eru, except for one legend, does not intervene in Arda except when asked by Manwë. Eru has, according to the Ainulindalë, either set things up - or can change things, so that the final result will be according to his basic design but better. So there is no need for any to try to follow the will of Eru, they can do nothing else.

Since we are at present discussing a work of fiction it is reasonable to assume that any ‘religion’ in it would be fictional even if based on a genuine belief. Whether religions in the real world are Fictions or not is beyond our ability to prove and outside the scope of this thread and the bounds of the forum.

Even if comparing Eru with the Christian God is comparing one fiction with another, so what? It is no different to comparing two similar fictional novels. I agree that there is the resemblance. However, again, the value of any religion is outside the bounds of TTF.

You give an interesting view of Christianity’s God but I don’t see the relevance of such a full-scale graphic description. We are here discussing Eru, who, while comparable is not the same. One thing we agree on. Eru is not perfect. Then again, my view on perfection is all over the forum in my sig.

It is not certain that in the case of Eru he did ‘let something slip’ there is also the possibility that Melkor’s rebellion was part of his plan. And while it may well be a ‘perfect case of anthropomorphic projection’ in the case of a fictional story based on a number of mythological sources I don’t find it very surprising.

I don’t understand your point that Tolkien has Eru creating a supposedly perfect reality. According to The Ainulindalë Tolkien had Eru and the Ainur creating a flawed Arda from the beginning. Eru had the chance to change or even scrap it completely and start again. From what I recall, according to Christian belief God created a ‘perfect world’ which became flawed later. However, with all the gods we know of, we only see them through the film of religion. 

In LotR and in the Silmarillion, I do not see evidence that Eru requires or wants worship. Indeed the closest that there is to worship is the festivals of thanksgiving by the Valar and the Númenóreans. And these seem to be simply their choice not imposed on them.


----------



## Walter (Oct 3, 2005)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> So patriarchy is the degenerated tail-end of matriarchy? That depresses me even more!


Like it or not, as it appears society in Europe throughout the Neolithic was entirely matrilineal, matrilocal and matriarchal. In the bronze age a slow transition towards a patriarchal, patrilocal and patrilineal society began, which continued into the iron age and came to its end in the classical period. Even in Scripture the struggle to diminish and neglect the role of women is still recognizeable.

That Tolkien's sub-creation, the "Silmarillion" now resembles those patriarchal myths of Germanic/Northern, Hellenic or Hebrew provenience, is not a surprise, on the one hand given Tolkien's own biography, on the other given the fact that in the first half of the 20th century little was known about society-structure in Europe throughout the Neolithic


----------



## Thorondor_ (Oct 3, 2005)

> Eru, except for one legend, does not intervene in Arda except when asked by Manwë


 Well, besides sinking Numenor, He also sends Gandalf back; is the legend you are reffering to Athrabeth Findor ah Andreth?


> It is not certain that in the case of Eru he did ‘let something slip’ there is also the possibility that Melkor’s rebellion was part of his plan





> From Eru's words, we can be sure that it wasn't a slip up. Like it or not, as it appears society in Europe throughout the Neolithic was entirely matrilineal, matrilocal and matriarchal


 According to some writers (Donald Brown, Margaret Mead and Joan Bramberger) there isn't enough evidence that matriarchic societies actually existed. Apparently, worshipping of godesses (which occurs in many cultures) doesn't imply a matriarchic society.


----------



## Walter (Oct 3, 2005)

Thorondor_ said:


> According to some writers (Donald Brown, Margaret Mead and Joan Bramberger) there isn't enough evidence that matriarchic societies actually existed. Apparently, worshipping of godesses (which occurs in many cultures) doesn't imply a matriarchic society.


Yes I know, there can not be what there must not be...

If you don't believe the mythographers and and mythological scholars (e.g. Frazier, Graves, Campbell) maybe read Renfrew or Gimbutas on that matter (or any of their - hundreds of - bibliographic references which support the case)...


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Oct 3, 2005)

Gothmog said:


> Barley
> 
> I would put it that it is a Fiction based on a Belief which is somewhat different. Yes Eru is his Version of God however there are a differences. Eru, except for one legend, does not intervene in Arda except when asked by Manwë. Eru has, according to the Ainulindalë, either set things up - or can change things, so that the final result will be according to his basic design but better. So there is no need for any to try to follow the will of Eru, they can do nothing else.



I saw your post last night Goth, but as we had just gotten back from my father-in-law's 96th(!) birthday party, I didn't have the juice to tackle it. Now we'll see what happens...

The only thing I need to respond to in your first paragraph above is: If everyone's every action is but the will of Eru, then what's the point? Where's free will? The entire creation and all it's creatures are then no more than wind-up toys set in motion by their Creator — to what end?



> Since we are at present discussing a work of fiction it is reasonable to assume that any ‘religion’ in it would be fictional even if based on a genuine belief. Whether religions in the real world are Fictions or not is beyond our ability to prove and outside the scope of this thread and the bounds of the forum.



It is also reasonable to assume that any human concept is a "fiction," in the sense that the human body/mind is incapable of apprehending the true nature of Reality because of its limits. My firm belief is that all religions — to the extent that they claim "divine knowledge," or "divine revelation," are, if not downright "fiction" in the literal sense, then unwarranted conclusions, at least insofar as the nature of the God and afterlife in question are concerned. _Whether religions in the real world are Fictions or not is beyond our ability to prove and outside the scope of this thread and the bounds of the forum._ First: whether something is inside or outside the scope of TTF's rules is a blurry concept at best when discussing this topic, especially since it was _invited_ by one of the mods. Second: Had your sentence completed after the word "prove," I would have been in total agreement with you, because it is a very cogent realization in itself. And there is this: the discussion sparks off ideas in my mind. Am I to censor myself just to keep within the boundaries of a set of rules which seems to be constantly in motion? If so, I shall retire from this thread immediately.



> Even if comparing Eru with the Christian God is comparing one fiction with another, so what? It is no different to comparing two similar fictional novels. I agree that there is the resemblance. However, again, the value of any religion is outside the bounds of TTF.



Why do you devalue my serious response with a "so what"? 



> You give an interesting view of Christianity’s God but I don’t see the relevance of such a full-scale graphic description.



Hey, _*I*_ didn't write the Bible! Please don't hold me responsible simply because I synopsized some of its passages! And the "full-scale graphic descriptions" are _precisely_ what I wanted to bring out in order to illustrate what happens when you get a God angry who sees his little creatures acting with a mind of their own, even when he's given them free will!



> We are here discussing Eru, who, while comparable is not the same. One thing we agree on. Eru is not perfect. Then again, my view on perfection is all over the forum in my sig.



Now _that_ idea — _that Eru isn't perfect_ — is remarkable to me. Just how far off the mark is he? What kind of mistakes does he make? Does he make minor errors only every so often, or is he a major incompetent? _What's the good of a God who isn't perfect_ and who makes mistakes??! If I were living in Middle-earth knowing that its creator was _prone to some unknown frequency to *err*, I would be terrified!_ Do not people who believe in a God assume him or her to be infallible? Otherwise where does it stop? A circle is perfect because it never changes, _it's dependable_ — but an OVAL, with infinite shifting degrees of "ovalness" — lemme outa here!



> It is not certain that in the case of Eru he did ‘let something slip’ there is also the possibility that Melkor’s rebellion was part of his plan. And while it may well be a ‘perfect case of anthropomorphic projection’ in the case of a fictional story based on a number of mythological sources I don’t find it very surprising.



Well now you seem to be contradicting your own assertion that Eru was fallible. After all, _whatever_ happens in his creation, including all of Melkor's shenanigans was in order to "redound" to Eru's glory. Why he needs to do this — why a Perfect Being (which was my assumption until you told me differently) should have needs _at all_ is beyond me.



> I don’t understand your point that Tolkien has Eru creating a supposedly perfect reality. According to The Ainulindalë Tolkien had Eru and the Ainur creating a flawed Arda from the beginning. Eru had the chance to change or even scrap it completely and start again. From what I recall, according to Christian belief God created a ‘perfect world’ which became flawed later. However, with all the gods we know of, we only see them through the film of religion.



Part of it is that I have never read the Silmarillion to great depth, and so you may rightly accuse me of being improperly prepared to discuss this topic. 

Othewise, it has been my lifelong assumption that when people think "God" they think _perfection; infallibility._ Isn't that the basis of prayer? God can do _anything,_ and so people supplicate for miracles. I applied that assumption to Eru. And when you say that God created a perfect world which became flawed later, that makes absolutely no sense to me, except as more anthropomorphism. It seems to me that a perfect object created by a perfect being would have, as a part of its perfection, the attribute of _never becoming imperfect._ 

(ASIDE: I see something going on in Middle-earth that is profoundly different from "real life," something which I think is quite a few notches up on the maturity scale: _No one prays_ in the traditional sense. People take responsibility for their actions. There is _supplication to known powers_ — Saruman, Sauron, Theoden, Ellesar, etc. — but nobody's praying to Eru, and Eru doesn't interfere with what he has set loose.)



> In LotR and in the Silmarillion, I do not see evidence that Eru requires or wants worship. Indeed the closest that there is to worship is the festivals of thanksgiving by the Valar and the Númenóreans. And these seem to be simply their choice not imposed on them.



I concede the point. That was (in my understanding) the purpose of the God seen in the Judaeo/Christian/Islamic religions. But then — why _did_ Eru create in the first place?

Barley


----------



## Gothmog (Oct 3, 2005)

Barly.

I will answer your post more fully later. However, I have to answer one point now.



Barliman Butterbur said:


> Why do you devalue my serious response with a "so what"?


My sincere apologies, that was a very poorly worded answer. I simply meant that comparing them as two fictions will basically yield the same result as we are comparing what is written about them.

returns later after working on answer.



Thorondor_ said:


> Well, besides sinking Numenor, He also sends Gandalf back; is the legend you are reffering to Athrabeth Findor ah Andreth?


Yes it is. Gandalf and the other Istari were sent with the permission of Eru so he was already involved at the request of the Valar when he sent Gandalf back. 


Barliman Butterbur said:


> I saw your post last night Goth, but as we had just gotten back from my father-in-law's 96th(!) birthday party, I didn't have the juice to tackle it. Now we'll see what happens...


My best wishes to your father-in-law. I hope you all enjoyed the party. 



Barliman Butterbur said:


> The only thing I need to respond to in your first paragraph above is: If everyone's every action is but the will of Eru, then what's the point? Where's free will? The entire creation and all it's creatures are then no more than wind-up toys set in motion by their Creator — to what end?


Eru's will is to create something glorious. What ever path any beings take, Eru either has seen to it, or will make sure that his creation will be glorious. Free will is only the ability to pick without coercion between the choices available. So each can choose their own path. But the journey of Arda is from a known start to a (presumably) known end.

When I said outside the scope of this thread, I meant that it would fit better a thread comparing the 'religion' inside Tolkien's work with 'religions' outside. As for my statement that it was outside the bounds of the forum. I cannot see how discussion over Real World religions being fiction can be genuinely linked to the works of Tolkien. However, I am quite prepared to be proved wrong in a thread of wider scope that covers that aspect. If the discussion sparks off ideas that go beyond the subject of the thread then a new thread might be better. Otherwise the original discussion may be lost for others.


Barliman Butterbur said:


> Hey, I didn't write the Bible! Please don't hold me responsible simply because I synopsized some of its passages!


Well I still don't see the need to have gone so far with the synopsis. But, that's just me. Thanks for the explanation. 


Barliman Butterbur said:


> Now that idea — that Eru isn't perfect — is remarkable to me.
> 
> Well now you seem to be contradicting your own assertion that Eru was fallible
> 
> Othewise, it has been my lifelong assumption that when people think "God" they think perfection; infallibility. Isn't that the basis of prayer? God can do anything, and so people supplicate for miracles. I applied that assumption to Eru. And when you say that God created a perfect world which became flawed later, that makes absolutely no sense to me, except as more anthropomorphism. It seems to me that a perfect object created by a perfect being would have, as a part of its perfection, the attribute of never becoming imperfect.


As for Eru being imperfect. I don't find it so remarkable. I believe that prior to Christianity (or possibly Judaism) there were no 'Perfect Gods' in Mythology.

It may seem that I am contradicting my own assertion, however, I am in fact pointing to my own lack of perfection. But, an imperfect Eru may have needed Melkor's rebellion to achieve what he could not do alone.

I suppose that it is the basis of prayer. But since I don't 'supplicate for miracles' I cannot be certain. I did not say that God created a perfect world, That was according to my (admittedly poor) memory what the Christian Bible said. The problem of a 'Perfect World' becoming imperfect was something Tolkien avoided. Arda was flawed almost from the first note of the Music.


Barliman Butterbur said:


> Part of it is that I have never read the Silmarillion to great depth, and so you may rightly accuse me of being improperly prepared to discuss this topic.
> 
> (ASIDE: I see something going on in Middle-earth that is profoundly different from "real life," something which I think is quite a few notches up on the maturity scale: No one prays in the traditional sense. People take responsibility for their actions. There is supplication to known powers — Saruman, Sauron, Theoden, Ellesar, etc. — but nobody's praying to Eru, and Eru doesn't interfere with what he has set loose.)


You seem to be catching up on your preparation. 


Barliman Butterbur said:


> I concede the point. That was (in my understanding) the purpose of the God seen in the Judaeo/Christian/Islamic religions. But then — why did Eru create in the first place?


Perhaps because he was imperfect. Or, if he was perfect, because Perfection as a state of being is a dead end, there can be no movement, no change, no progress. Would that not be a reason to create imperfection?


----------



## Walter (Oct 3, 2005)

Gothmog said:


> As for Eru being imperfect. I don't find it so remarkable. I believe that prior to Christianity (or possibly Judaism) there were no 'Perfect Gods' in Mythology.


God's perfection is the prerequisite for Anselm's ontological proof, IIRC: Because perfection includes existence, God - being perfect - must necessarily exist...

However it is difficult to understand how a perfect being could possibly be so cruel, unforgiving and violent as the Jahwe/Jehova/Elohim of Scripture is/are portrayed...

But since Eru shows quite a similar cruelty I see little difference.

If we, however, see them in their mythological context - as the successors of the warrior gods of older myths - it becomes much easier to understand. 



> Or, if he was perfect, because Perfection as a state of being is a dead end, there can be no movement, no change, no progress. Would that not be a reason to create imperfection?


This, IMO, would support Thomas of Aquinas' view of God as the "primary unmoved mover", interestingly enough, this seems to apply to Eru rather than the God of Scripture, who is portrayed as occasionally walking among his children...


----------



## Gothmog (Oct 3, 2005)

Walter said:


> God's perfection is the prerequisite for Anselm's ontological proof, IIRC: Because perfection includes existence, God - being perfect - must necessarily exist...


Perhaps this is why I had trouble with it 



> This, IMO, would support Thomas of Aquinas' view of God as the "primary unmoved mover", interestingly enough, this seems to apply to Eru rather than the God of Scripture, who is portrayed as occasionally walking among his children...


Maybe that part would do so. However, it felt more like I was having an 'Elvish Moment' and saying both yes and no!


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Oct 4, 2005)

Goth, you gave me some good chuckles of appreciation of the brilliant points you made!

So Eru is imperfect, and made his creation to redound to his own glory — good!  That makes perfect (or is it imperfect  ) sense! But "perfection" and "imperfection" are but human concepts and may or may not (more likely) come close to the mark on what Really Is. Eastern thought would say that this all-pervasive imperfection is in itself perfect. But I dare not extend _that_ discussion.

This is why I always say, when all the smoke clears: It all comes down to _losing myself_ in that _whopping good tale_ that Tolkien wrote — the sheer _entertainment_ of reading the Saga! For me, that's _everything!_

Barley


----------



## Gothmog (Oct 4, 2005)

Barly, I am glad that you enjoyed my post so much 

I agree about the concepts being only human and very probably far wide of the mark.

And while discussions can be much fun, the important thing is to be able to, as you say, lose yourself in the tale Tolkien wrote.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Oct 4, 2005)

Walter said:


> God's perfection is the prerequisite for Anselm's ontological proof, IIRC: Because perfection includes existence, God - being perfect - must necessarily exist...
> 
> However it is difficult to understand how a perfect being could possibly be so cruel, unforgiving and violent as the Jahwe/Jehova/Elohim of Scripture is/are portrayed...
> 
> But since Eru shows quite a similar cruelty I see little difference.



I wish I'd known about Anselm — it would have been so much easier to buttress that point when I made it!   

On the other hand, one can make this refutation of Anselm: In order for a God to be perfect, he must _not_ exist, because objects which exist are _ipso facto_ imperfect.  I think we need to decide upon a universally accepted definition of perfection before we can go on much further... 

Barley


----------



## Walter (Oct 5, 2005)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> I think we need to decide upon a universally accepted definition of perfection before we can go on much further...


Perfection is a path we tread,...


----------



## Gothmog (Oct 5, 2005)

Walter said:


> Perfection is a path we tread,...


Well I agree with that


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Oct 5, 2005)

Gothmog said:


> Free will is only the ability to pick without coercion between the choices available.



I just noticed this striking observation you made, and it quite gave me pause for thought!

I never thought of it like that before, but you're right: although there are theoretically infinite choices available, empirically our choices are comparatively limited. However, just to show what a good fellow I am, and can dance on both sides of the line —

Previously, I said (we may even have agreed on the point) that once Eru set things in motion, he didn't interfere in the consequence of his creatures' actions; prayer in the common meaning did not exist in Middle-earth; people took responsibility for the consequnces of their actions for the most part.

But there are passages scattered through out LOTR (such as the one quoted below) that give an indication that Eru was behind the curtain covertly pulling the strings:

*Gandalf to Frodo in FOTR, Book 1, Chapter One:* "...there was something else at work, beyond any design of the Ring-maker. I can put it no plainer than by saying that Bilbo was _meant_ to find the Ring, and _not_ by its maker. In which case you also were _meant_ to have it." _[emphasis mine]_

LOTR is full of such references to good and evil _überkräften_ pitted against each other behind the scenes, to both gross and subtle effect on Middle-earth's inhabitants.

So much for free will...again... 

Barley


----------



## Gothmog (Oct 5, 2005)

Yes we did agree about that 


Barliman Butterbur said:


> But there are passages scattered through out LOTR (such as the one quoted below) that give an indication that Eru was behind the curtain covertly pulling the strings:
> 
> *Gandalf to Frodo in FOTR, Book 1, Chapter One:* "...there was something else at work, beyond any design of the Ring-maker. I can put it no plainer than by saying that Bilbo was _meant_ to find the Ring, and _not_ by its maker. In which case you also were _meant_ to have it." _[emphasis mine]_
> 
> ...


True, there are points like that throughout the book. These things may well be due to Eru, or perhaps, one of the Valar helping out. But let us look at the one you cited. In what way did it affect Free Will? Now if Bilbo had not found the Ring then the most likely result is that Sauron would have soon recovered it. Sauron + Ring was too great for any in Middle-earth to deal with. So there soon would have been no choices to exercise Free Will upon.

Now, Bilbo was directed to the Ring but what he did after was up to him. He might have immediately thrown it away, (unlikely, but possible at that point.) He might have later kept it despite Gandalf's work. It might have been used against Sauron creating a new 'Dark Lord' The number of choices increased because of Bilbo finding the Ring.

So far from limiting Free Will, such subtle actions increased it by giving more choices on which to exercise it.


----------



## Arnor spirit (Oct 5, 2005)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> But there are passages scattered through out LOTR (such as the one quoted below) that give an indication that Eru was behind the curtain covertly pulling the strings:
> 
> *Gandalf to Frodo in FOTR, Book 1, Chapter One:* "...there was something else at work, beyond any design of the Ring-maker. I can put it no plainer than by saying that Bilbo was _meant_ to find the Ring, and _not_ by its maker. In which case you also were _meant_ to have it." _[emphasis mine]_
> 
> ...


 Hallo Barley,

I think I've found possible alternative explanations for the divine interventions you are speaking about.

If I remember correctly Sauron's ring was found by hobbit (or Hobbit?) Deagol in the river. Few hundred years after that Bilbo found the One very close to Gollum's underground lake. And Vala Ulmo is known for his interference on behalf of Edain/Eldar during the First age. Moreover it is said in Silmarillion that Ulmo bears the Middleearth and all its inhabitants in his mind and will do so till the end of the Time.

Concerning Gandalf's resurrection after the battle against balrog I think Manwe's intervention could be also very probable explanation. IMHO after his 'death' Gandalf is not thrown outside of Arda or allowed to return to Iluvatar as all Ainur dwelling in Arda are bound to it till the end of the Time. So I guess his spirit only traveled back to Valinor where he was probably consoled (as the death of their physical bodies was surely very painful and frustrating experience even for the Maiar spirits) and with Manwe's blessing sent back to finish his quest.

But on the other hand I *do *think that from time to time Iluvatar intervenes in the Ea. Have you noticed that unobtrusive flute theme when exhausted Sam and Frodo are climbing uphill on the slope of Orodruin? I hadn't noticed that until I saw the 'Return of the King" for the third time . But of course I'm speaking about the film and not about the book now.


And cheers to all.

I'm glad I've found this forum as I've more topics and questions I would like to discuss with other fellow Tolkien fans.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Oct 5, 2005)

Gothmog said:


> Yes we did agree about that
> 
> True, there are points like that throughout the book. These things may well be due to Eru, or perhaps, one of the Valar helping out. But let us look at the one you cited. In what way did it affect Free Will? Now if Bilbo had not found the Ring then the most likely result is that Sauron would have soon recovered it. Sauron + Ring was too great for any in Middle-earth to deal with. So there soon would have been no choices to exercise Free Will upon.
> 
> ...



All true enough. But in the end, we must remember that it's a work of fiction, and will never change from the way Tolkien left it to us. So that leaves us free to play the speculation game in all directions forever and ever and ever and ever...  

*Hail and well met, Arnor!* Welcome to our cozy little asylum!

Barley


----------



## Gothmog (Oct 5, 2005)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> All true enough. But in the end, we must remember that it's a work of fiction, and will never change from the way Tolkien left it to us. So that leaves us free to play the speculation game in all directions forever and ever and ever and ever...
> 
> *Hail and well met, Arnor!* Welcome to our cozy little asylum!
> 
> Barley


I wasn't playing 'the speculation game' but pointing out how the way Tolkien wrote it opened up the possibilities for Free Will within the story. Also while Tolkien was writing it he, for the most part, did not know exactly what was going to happen until he put the words down on paper. So while it is indeed a work of fiction it still had exactly the same result, it increased the choices for Free Will. In the story it was for the various charaters in the real world for Tolkien. 

Greetings Arnor. I hope that you enjoy your stay here


----------



## Thorondor_ (Oct 5, 2005)

> Concerning Gandalf's resurrection after the battle against balrog I think Manwe's intervention could be also very probable explanation. IMHO after his 'death' Gandalf is not thrown outside of Arda or allowed to return to Iluvatar as all Ainur dwelling in Arda are bound to it till the end of the Time. So I guess his spirit only traveled back to Valinor where he was probably consoled (as the death of their physical bodies was surely very painful and frustrating experience even for the Maiar spirits) and with Manwe's blessing sent back to finish his quest.


From the White Rider, TTT:


> ....Then darkness took me; and I strayed out of thought and time, and I wandered far on roads that I will not tell.Naked I was sent back – for a brief time, until my task is done


From Letter 156:


> He was handing over to the Authority that ordained the Rules, and giving up personal hope of success
> ...
> Sent back by whom, and whence? Not by the 'gods' whose business is only with this embodied world and its time; for he passed 'out of thought and time'


----------



## Arnor spirit (Oct 5, 2005)

Thanks for your greetings 

Thorondor, it looks like that your second quote (Letter No. 156) shots my argument down in flames. IMHO I see the first one to be rather ambivalent in the context of this discussion as we don't know what are usual feelings of deceased Maia.  

And nevertheless my point was based on my assumption what happens to deceased Maiars within the Ea. For example after his death caused by Wormtongue Saruman's spirit tries to leave for Valinor but is refused and scattered via "cold wind from the west". So I expected that Gandalf's spirit would do the same. 

And of course pardon my rather poor English ...


----------



## Walter (Oct 6, 2005)

Gandalf's death and "resurrection" represents IMO some sort of an afterthought of Tolkien, in the drafts Gandalf doesn't die and it is not entirely clear when Tolkien changed his mind in that issue.

Tolkien was aware that this is a 'defect' in the story, it was called cheating by critics, and Tolkien is at great pains to explain it (again to Father Robert Murray, the Jesuit) in his letter #156 (of which Thorondor quoted a small part in his previous post).


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Oct 6, 2005)

Walter, since you don't accept PMs and emails, could you please PM me? There's something I want to share with you that I've already shared with the rest of the TTF _cognoscenti..._ 

Barley


----------



## Walter (Oct 6, 2005)

Barley you can find me here...


----------



## Thorondor_ (Oct 7, 2005)

> Gandalf's death and "resurrection" represents IMO some sort of an afterthought of Tolkien, in the drafts Gandalf doesn't die and it is not entirely clear when Tolkien changed his mind in that issue


 I think it is debatable; in "The white rider", HoME 7: "Gandalf does not say, as in TT, 'Naked I was sent back - for a brief time, until my task is done', but simply 'Naked I returned, and naked I lay upon the mountain-top". 


> Tolkien was aware that this is a 'defect' in the story, it was called cheating by critics, and Tolkien is at great pains to explain it (again to Father Robert Murray, the Jesuit) in his letter #156 (of which Thorondor quoted a small part in his previous post).


 It's not a "random" refference though; in the same letter, he says: "he was handing over to the Authority that ordained the Rules, and giving up personal hope of success". Later on, in Letter#181, he makes even cleare his reasons:


> But the situation became so much the worse by the fall of Saruman, that the 'good' were obliged to greater effort and sacrifice. Thus Gandalf faced and suffered death; and came back or was sent back, as he says, with enhanced power. But though one may be in this reminded of the Gospels, it is not really the same thing at all. The Incarnation of God is an infinitely greater thing than anything I would dare to write. Here I am only concerned with Death as part of the nature, physical and spiritual, of Man, and with Hope without guarantees.


----------



## Walter (Oct 7, 2005)

I was thinking of this part:



> I think the way in which Gandalf's return is presented is a defect, and one other critic, as much under the spell as yourself, curiously used the same expression: 'cheating'. That is partly due to the ever-present compulsions of narrative technique. He must return at that point, and such explanations of his survival as are explicitly set out must be given there – but the narrative is urgent, and must not be held up for elaborate discussions involving the whole 'mythological' setting. It is a little impeded even so, though I have severely cut G's account of himself. I might perhaps have made more clear the later remarks in Vol. II (and Vol. III) which refer to or are made by Gandalf, but I have purposely kept all allusions to the highest matters down to mere hints, perceptible only by the most attentive, or kept them under unexplained symbolic forms. So God and the 'angelic' gods, the Lords or Powers of the West, only peep through in such places as Gandalf's conversation with Frodo: 'behind that there was something else at work, beyond any design of the Ring-maker's' ; or in Faramir's Númenórean grace at dinner.
> Gandalf really 'died', and was changed: for that seems to me the only real cheating, to represent anything that can be called 'death' as making no difference. 'I am G. the White, who has returned from death'. Probably he should rather have said to Wormtongue: 'I have not passed through death (not 'fire and flood') to bandy crooked words with a serving-man'. And so on. I might say much more, but it would only be in (perhaps tedious) elucidation of the 'mythological' ideas in my mind; it would not, I fear, get rid of the fact that the return of G. is as presented in this book a 'defect', and one I was aware of, and probably did not work hard enough to mend
> 
> Letters #156


----------



## Helcaraxë (Nov 27, 2005)

I wouldn't say that Eru is Tolkien's "version" of God any more than I would say the Misty Mountains are his version of the Alps. Tolkien intended his mythology to be set in a mythical time, not a mythical place; e.g., Earth. But Tolkien has made "our world" nonetheless his own. Tolkien never intended his works to be allegorical; he never intended Eru to be "God." For Tolkien, Eru was a necessary part of existence, and though God plays a similar role for Tolkien, a Catholic, in real life, this in no way means that Eru "represents" or "is" God. Tolkien's references to his work being "christian and catholic" are taken out of context; Tolkien was inspired by his ideas about the world, which correspond with his religious beliefs, but he was equally (I would argue more) inspired by the various mythologies that he was so intrigued by. 

If you look at Eru's nature, you will see things very different from the Christian deity. These have been discussed earlier in this thread, and I will not repeat them. Suffice to say that Eru was influenced, like the mythology in its entirety, by many factors, only one of them being his religious beliefs. You will see many things about Eru that are distinctly Un-Christian. 

Tolkien tried hard not to make a "Christian" mythology, as someone else pointed out. The fact that he used, in the mythology, facts that he believed were fundamentally true about the world does not imply either a parallel, a representation, and certainly not an allegorical relationship with those facts.


----------



## Arvedui (Nov 28, 2005)

Although Tolkien clearly states that he dislikes "allegory," he does allow for his works to have "applicability."
So by adding that to the fact that he was a devout Catholic, I would not dismiss the idea that Eru might in many ways resemble God.


----------



## Helcaraxë (Nov 28, 2005)

Oh, of course! I never said that Eru doesn't resemble God. But I think it is a result of Tolkien trying to make his world similar to ours, only more wondrous and in an imaginary _time_. However, Tolkien had many influences, only one of them being his religion. Though J.R.R. often referred to Eru as "God" in his letters, I think this can be easily misinterpreted. Tolkien did not mean Eru to be the God that led the Jews out of Egypt, father of Jesus Christ, etc. Rather, in the mythology, he sees Eru as the God that (he believed) is the necessary consequence of existence, and a necessary part of his imagined world. Eru is no more the Christian God in Tolkien's works than the mountains are Christian mountains, or the sky a Christian sky.


----------



## Arvedui (Dec 3, 2005)

Helcaraxë said:


> Oh, of course! I never said that Eru doesn't resemble God. But I think it is a result of Tolkien trying to make his world similar to ours, only more wondrous and in an imaginary _time_. However, Tolkien had many influences, only one of them being his religion. Though J.R.R. often referred to Eru as "God" in his letters, I think this can be easily misinterpreted. Tolkien did not mean Eru to be the God that led the Jews out of Egypt, father of Jesus Christ, etc. Rather, in the mythology, he sees Eru as the God that (he believed) is the necessary consequence of existence, and a necessary part of his imagined world. Eru is no more the Christian God in Tolkien's works than the mountains are Christian mountains, or the sky a Christian sky.


I think that you are quite right! Eru is THE God, not a specific God according to some religion.


----------

