[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.