[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

The only reason for my raising this whole point about "god" was that the writer in the original essay asks the question of how Turin can suffer in a universe that supposedly governed by a benevolent god.

The "benevolent" Christian god allows suffering in the "real world", so you and your befuddled essay-friend are, in the usual circumlocutionary manner, barking up the wrong tree. If one follows Christian dogma, the "real world" is transitory, and only a waystation for a greater kingdom. Turin, and the mortal race as a whole, had a separate destiny after death that the Elves knew nothing about. So, if one were following the Christian dogma, then Turin suffering due to the choices he made via free will, is completely within the dictates of the Christian ethos -- or mythos, depending on your religiosity or lack thereof. So, by questioning the nature of Eru, are you not questioning the contradictory nature of the bible itself?

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

I have, along with the essay writer, assumed that Tolkien's Eru possesses characteristics that are ascribed to the Xtian god by most theologians today - that is, omnibenevolence, omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence.

There is no contrary indication that, like the god of the bible, Eru could exhibit "omnibenevolence, omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence" while allowing Turin to suffer for the choices he made out of his own free will.

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

I then argued that if this were the case, there are certain logical contradictions inherent in that conception that would apply to Eru.

Again, you don't believe in Christian dogma. That's fine, neither do I. What's your point?

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

So if Eru doesn't actually possess any or some of these attributes, (for example, he is not totally omnibenevolent) certain questions are raised about Tolkien's mythos, let alone Tolkien's personal beliefs.

Are there certain questions raised about Tolkien's mythos or his personal beliefs? I am sure, given your constant harping on the subject, that it is your life's dream to find such inconsistencies, but you continue to ignore the story in its entirety; therefore, the substance of your arguments are flawed. For instance, there is certainly a contradictory nature in Yahweh of the Old Testament, compared to the "new age" enlightened god of the New Testament, yet Christians as a whole accept the disparate nature of the old and new god. However, when reading the Silmarillion (and by extension the CoH, which is merely a lengthy extension of the Silm) one cannot help but see echoes of the antedeluvian Old Testament resonating throughout the series of interrelated tales. Interrelated and resonant but not an exact simile, in order to create a whole new mythos, not merely parroting the old.

But to question Tolkien's personal beliefs just because he created a separate mythos to lend credence to a fantasy world is absurd on the part of the essayist. Tolkien was a great synthesizer of real world mythos, whether it came from the Kalevala (and many of the major plot points of CoH are derived from this Finnish tale), the Völuspá, or the bible, for that matter. Does the Silmarillion have an inner consistency? Yes, I think very much so, and CoH, which is a part of the Silmarillion from a historical and literary standpoint, follows in the manner that Tolkien mapped out the 1st Age. In his letters, Tolkien states several times that Eru is "remote", both from Elves and Men, and even the Valar in the 1st Age, but that does not mean he is not omnipresent, merely that he has unfolded the "world that is" and allowed for the story to develop as it was conceived in the Ainulindalë.

Does it conflict with the ethos of LotR? No, I do not see any conflict. And that is where we disagree, even though you keep trotting out the same tired series of arguments over several threads. Repeating yourself does not enhance your points, it merely emphasizes that you have an agenda that is neither supported by reading Tolkien's corpus, nor is it accepted by most of the readers who have replied to you here or in the endless stream of like posts that you pile in ponderous mounds in an effort to buttress your precarious position.