LotR -- Book 6 - Chapter 3 - Mount Doom

[davem]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

This does not follow. Parents are of the same type and order as their children. Eru was not (putting it mildly). The same rules don't apply.

So Eru operates by different rules? There are two moral codes - the one Eru works by & the one He imposes on His children? Eru can kill whichever of His children he wishes & that is 'Good', but if His children kill each other that is 'bad'?

So, which moral code is objectively Right? Of course, in our world, this diference does not exist - Jesus tells his disciples to be like their Father in Heaven - ie to obey the same moral & behavioural standards God follows. In Middle-earth it must be different. Eru can do as He likes & whatever He does, even if it is against the laws & rules he lays down for His children, is 'Good' by definition, simply because He does it?

If you are going to accuse Eru of being a murderer, then it started waaaaaaaay back at the beginning when he decided that the Atani were going to experience death and leave the world.

No - because mortality is part of the Human condition. There's a difference between creating beings who are mortal & who die as a consequence of being what they are, & deliberately taking the life of someone before their time.

[Firefoot]

deliberately taking the life of someone before their time.

Before his time! Gollum was more than 500 years old; the Ring prolonged his life. Gollum, mortal that he is, should have died long ago. But I suppose I see what you mean, a natural death, as it were. The statement just struck me as odd.

So, which moral code is objectively Right? Of course, in our world, this diference does not exist - Jesus tells his disciples to be like their Father in Heaven - ie to obey the same moral & behavioural standards God follows. In Middle-earth it must be different. Eru can do as He likes & whatever He does, even if it is against the laws & rules he lays down for His children, is 'Good' by definition, simply because He does it?

If you're going to compare it to our world, you have to do it all the way; you do not mention anything about the right to judge. The Bible also tells us not to judge - that right is reserved for God alone. There were wicked people in both Old and New Testaments that God did strike down. If Eru did kill Gollum, how would that be any different?

Gollum didn't have to do the things he did. He didn't have to kill Deagol, he didn't have to use the Ring for evil purposes, but he did, and those choices all eventually led him to his death at Mt. Doom. He wasn't a puppet that Eru ordained had to do all these things so that he could be killed at Mt. Doom.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by davem

No - because mortality is part of the Human condition. There's a difference between creating beings who are mortal & who die as a consequence of being what they are, & deliberately taking the life of someone before their time.

How? Either way, someone is responsible for the fact that they die. And it's not as if Eru arbitrarily gave ALL of his creatures mortality. The Elves, as I'm sure everyone's noticed, are quite free of any such constraints. Whether mortality is better or worse than immortality, the fact is that it wasn't distributed evenly.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Firefoot

There were wicked people in both Old and New Testaments that God did strike down. If Eru did kill Gollum, how would that be any different?

Well, it calls into question the Commandment 'Thou shalt do no murder' - unless the corollory is 'leave that to Me.' In other words, murder per se isn't wrong, in fact, if God/Eru does it its OK.

Gollum didn't have to do the things he did. He didn't have to kill Deagol, he didn't have to use the Ring for evil purposes, but he did, and those choices all eventually led him to his death at Mt. Doom. He wasn't a puppet that Eru ordained had to do all these things so that he could be killed at Mt. Doom.

But if Gollum was wrong to take the life of Deagol to get what he wanted, & Eru killed Gollum to get what He wanted how would that be different?

Originally Posted by Formendacil

How? Either way, someone is responsible for the fact that they die. And it's not as if Eru arbitrarily gave ALL of his creatures mortality. The Elves, as I'm sure everyone's noticed, are quite free of any such constraints. Whether mortality is better or worse than immortality, the fact is that it wasn't distributed evenly.

The Elves are the exception. All other races/beings are mortal. What we're talking about here is not Gollum dying because someone shot him, because he caught some disease. etc, but because Eru willed his death when he wouldn't otherwise have died, & therefore whether Eru should be held accountable for that. If Middle-earth has the equivalent of a Judgement Day Eru is going to be in a dificult position bringing Smeagol to account for taking the life of Deagol because He has taken the life of Smeagol.

Of course, one could argue that killing Smeagol was an act of loving compassion on the behalf of Eru - seeing one of His children in torment & knowing that he could never be free of his desire for the Ring while it existed & also knowing that after its destruction he could only have endured a long painful demise He chose to release him, etc, but that would still make Eru directly responsible for the fact that Smeagol died, against his will, because Eru ended his life.

These are difficult theological questions - ones which Jung struggled with, incidentally, in Answer to Job

[Kuruharan]

Well, it calls into question the Commandment 'Thou shalt do no murder' - unless the corollory is 'leave that to Me.'

Well, as a matter of fact...if you really want to go down that road...

It is mine to avenge; I will repay.
Deut. 32:35 NIV

...and since it somehow seems appropriate to the topic at hand (which I believe is how we somehow started on this and may at some nebulous point in the future wish to get back to)...the rest of the verse...

In due time their foot will slip; their day of disaster is near and their doom rushes upon them.

Yes, I know I have a nasty sense of humor.

I'm going to assume you didn't get a chance to see my previous post, and so will give you the opportunity before returning to topic.

[Firefoot]

But if Gollum was wrong to take the life of Deagol to get what he wanted, & Eru killed Gollum to get what He wanted how would that be different?

It's entirely different. For one thing, Smeagol's murder of Deagol was just that: murder. Smeagol is in now way in the right. He wants something Deagol has, so he kills him for it. On the other hand, Eru, the Authority, causes Gollum to slip - both just and merciful, not just "to get what he wanted." Smeagol's motives in killing Deagol were entirely selfish, Eru's were not - and Gollum wasn't just a random bystander, either. Gollum had his chances at redemption, but he chose not to take them and continued on his own selfish quest to get the Ring back. He was offered forgiveness and mercy, but accepted neither. Eru's "killing" of Gollum was both just and merciful - mostly to Gollum, but also to Frodo and to all of Middle-earth. And it's not like Gollum wasn't acting of his own free will when he took the Ring and was dancing around with it.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

Another point, why aren't you up in arms about the slaughter of the Numenorians? That is explicitly presented by Tolkien as being an act of Eru. He was certainly a murderer then even if at no other time.

It seems He only intervenes at the point where He has to kill somebody to prevent a disaster. You do wonder why He couldn't intervene at an earlier point where He wouldn't end up with blood on His hands...

I'm sure at some point somebody has demanded an answer to the question of, "What took Eru so long to punish Gollum for his murder of Deagol and eating all those poor babies?!! How can Eru be good if he allows this sort of thing to go unpunished for so long?!"

Or demanded an answer to the question of why, if He was prepared to intervene in His creation, He didn't intervene to saved those poor babies?

This makes no sense. What is the difference between programming a natural death into somebody and tossing them into a volcano if the same being is responsible for both?

Its the difference between the general & the specific...

And for the rest, I still go back to Answer to Job.

[Kuruharan]

I suspect from this point on we are just going to be running in circles.

Its the difference between the general & the specific

You are still not getting me…

What it sounds like you are saying is that you find it perfectly alright to kill on a huge (indeed total) scale through disease and decay, but object to an intervention to end one particular life. However, the end of both is the same thing. This really almost seems like splitting hairs. I have to ask why you find the built in death to be so preferable?

It seems He only intervenes at the point where He has to kill somebody to prevent a disaster. You do wonder why He couldn't intervene at an earlier point where He wouldn't end up with blood on His hands

Well, that would sort of be messing with the freedom of choice thing that was also part of Eru’s Gift to Men.

Or demanded an answer to the question of why, if He was prepared to intervene in His creation, He didn't intervene to saved those poor babies?

What method would you propose? You obviously object to Eru intervening to kill Gollum. If he had been caught by the Woodmen or the Dalemen, he would have been killed. You could construct an argument that Eru would be culpable for that. Gollum could have been chased off or scared away. However, now we get back to the meddling with free will issue again. Gollum wanted to do wrong. What is to be done with such a creature?

There are any number of things to discuss about Answer to Job, however they have nothing to do with Tolkien so I’ll confine myself one comment on what seems the most relevant issue. I’m afraid I fail to entirely appreciate the relevance of this piece to the topic at hand. Quite frankly, I think you are attempting to inject it in the wrong place. I say this, if for no other reason, than because Job’s suffering was unmerited, where I don’t think anybody would argue with the notion that Gollum was a thoroughly rotten individual and ultimately embraced that choice. This sort of renders a large part of the point of Answer to Job irrelevant to the discussion.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

What it sounds like you are saying is that you find it perfectly alright to kill on a huge (indeed total) scale through disease and decay, but object to an intervention to end one particular life. However, the end of both is the same thing. This really almost seems like splitting hairs. I have to ask why you find the built in death to be so preferable?

No its not. Men are given the gift of death, the freedom to pass beyond the circles of the world. In other words it is not their nature to remain in the world. One could argue the same with Smeagol, so that he should have died many years previously & that Eru was merely taking away the unnatural 'gift' bestowed on him by the Ring. My point in this context is not that it is wrong for Smeagol to die - death in itself is not wrong - it is that Eru intentionally kills him when he wouldn't otherwise have died. Gollum's death is not a result of natural causes, but of the will of Eru.

Well, that would sort of be messing with the freedom of choice thing that was also part of Eru’s Gift to Men.

But surely that's the case with any direct intervention by Eru - by His destruction of the Numenorean fleet Eru takes away Men's freedom of choice. A 'gift' that can be taken back at any time the giver feels like is hardly a 'gift' at all.

This sort of renders a large part of the point of Answer to Job irrelevant to the discussion.

I didn't bring up AtJ because of any similarity of Gollum to Job, but because of what it says about God - specifically in relation to Eru's use of his creation & His apparent belief that He is beyond question in anything He does. Eru allows evil to come into the world, so ultimately He is responsible for its existence. The argument that this is a requirement of a truly free creation doesn't wash, because He will take away that freedom whenever He sees fit.

Anyway, I'm sort of wishing I hadn't dragged primary world religion into this & I'm happy to agree to disagree on this one.