Is Eru God?

[Eonwe]

yes, but that is only kind of true. you can think of god as anything you want. and you can believe god is anything you want. but that doesn't change who God really is.

in other words, you can believe an idol to be God, but that doesn't make it God. God is God no matter what you or i believe.

i think the bottom line is that Eru displays none of the charactersistics of the Christian/Jewish (aka Jehovah) God. which would be personal relationships, mercy, grace, etc.

here is something else to think about. you can't really make any kind of comparison about Eru and God without looking at morality. in the christian view, if you sin, you're screwed, except for grace and jesus' blood. in teh middle-earth consept, that is not always true. the sons of feanor didn't really get punished all that much. (correctly me if im wrong, i believe they just got extra long time in the halls of mandos, which isn't much to an immortal elf.) It never says much about the fate of men, not to mention the fate of good men, and evil men. or even what make you a good man or an evil man. (well the evil is obvious i guess. but many of teh "good" men did bad things.

it seems as if Eru/the powers that be that represent Eru's intetions and wishes are quite a bit more linitent that God. and sin is a huge, major deal to God.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by Eonwe

God is God no matter what you or i believe.

Either that or God isn't God, no matter what you or I believe.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Eonwe

in the christian view, if you sin, you're screwed, except for grace and jesus' blood.

Unless we assume that all of Tolkien's revelations were BC, then a blood sacrifice would do.

Originally Posted by davem

Recently I've begun to wonder whether what we get from LotR is not 'satisfaction' a having our spiritual questions answered or our confusions & dilemmas resolved, but rather a 'confirmation' of our own doubts & uncertainties.

Or do we see a reflection of what we want it all to be? Do Christians see the Christian God? Do others see a First Cause? And still others might see a great 'explanatory' mythology. And of course the more boring just see words on a page...

Is that the making of the next poll where one indicates his/her belief system and also how he/she perceives Eru? I'd wager that you'd see a strong correlation between 'beliefs' and the text.

[Roa_Aoife]

If we assume the LoTR is a history, it would probably be in the BC era, which, according to the Old Testament, faith and repentance were the saving grace, and nothing else. The "good guys" in LoTR seemed, for the most part, to have this faith in Eru, and to truly repent when they screwed up. And just because a character didn't fight for Suaron, it doesn't make him necessarily a "good guy" (I point to Denethor.)

Eru does fit the Deist view of God, which says that God created the world and then left it to it's own devices. Many Christians were and still are Deists, both Catholic and Non-Catholic. So it is very possible that Tolkien had a similar view. (I think from the quotes provided it is clear what Tolkien thought.)

However, Eru does act, albeit indirectly and subtlely, throught the story; and it is obvious that unseen forces are moving on both sides. Eru shows mercy in the Silm. several times, and demonstrates love of His children, both the first and second born, by giving them different gifts.

[davem]

Originally Posted by alatar

Or do we see a reflection of what we want it all to be? Do Christians see the Christian God? Do others see a First Cause? And still others might see a great 'explanatory' mythology. And of course the more boring just see words on a page...
.

I suppose we all read it in the light of our experiences - though I think we should try not to. The more of the primary world we bring in to our reading the less Middle-earth will seem a real, self-contained secondary world.

What interests me is the way reading LotR in the light of the Sil affects our understanding of the story, & in particular our understanding of Frodo's fate. Helen's post makes this point. The 'permanent problem' of evil in LotR is dealt with & answered if we read it in the light of the Sil. If we don't the problem remains unanswered. Yet many readers find The Sil difficult & have little or no time for it. It doesn't move them in the way LotR does. I wonder if this is because it offers answers to those very 'permanent problems' & that on some level those answers seem either over complex & metaphysical, or overly simplistic. Maybe those readers just feel 'No, that's not it' - even if they can't supply the 'right' answers for themselves.

LotR simply presents us with the kind of world we know, where sacrifice & suffering, selfishness & loss, cruelty, beauty, love & grief are facts of existence, existing for themselves. The Sil attempts to explain the 'why' of those things. The Sil introduces the necessity for 'faith', trust & belief in things 'beyond the circles of the World' - it requires those things from readers if they are to enter into the story. LotR does not. For all Tolkien's protests it is, ultimately, a 'secular' novel - yes, there are 'believers' in it (notably the Elves, hymning Elbereth) but there is no necessity for the reader to believe what they do.

Certainly, the massive popularity of LotR over the Sil says a great deal about our age. I daresay if the novels had been published 500 years ago the Sil would have been the more popular work.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

Certainly, the massive popularity of LotR over the Sil says a great deal about our age. I daresay if the novels had been published 500 years ago the Sil would have been the more popular work.

Not sure on that. To me the difficulty of the Sil is that it reads more like a text book than a novel, and so it's not the information contained therein that is problematic but the presentation of the same. In LotR you walk along with Frodo (for the most part) and see the world through his journey. In the Sil you tend to jump around more, and I would assume that more people favor the stories in the Sil that are more complete and self-contained.

And surely others have noticed the repetitiveness of the Sil stories - the long defeat - and so might be put off by that. Also like some parts of the Christian Bible, not many lay readers are interested in lists of 'begats.' Does anyone else skip over the detailed description of Numenor after reading it the first time?

So I would guess that it's a writing style, not the answers to life's questions, that put people off.

And to be sure, does anyone know where we can find at least two literate 500 year old persons?

[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote:

I wonder if this is because it offers answers to those very 'permanent problems' & that on some level those answers seem either over complex & metaphysical, or overly simplistic. Maybe those readers just feel 'No, that's not it' - even if they can't supply the 'right' answers for themselves.

I don't know. Speaking for myself, I'm a great fan of the Silmarillion but I am not religious. If religious 'answers' are what put people off about the Silmarillion, then one would think that I'd be among the first to be put off by them.

Or maybe it works the other way - maybe because I don't approach the Silmarillion with the objective of learning about some extra-literary 'Truth', I am not disappointed when I fail to find it.

Edit: Cross-post with alatar, who makes a good point and one with which I agree. It seems to me that it is the style of the Silmarillion (and particularly the published Silmarillion) to which some people react negatively.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

The 'permanent problem' of evil in LotR is dealt with & answered if we read it in the light of the Sil. If we don't the problem remains unanswered.

I don't think this is true. Bear with me as it will take a few quotes and explications to develop my point. For starters, a few quotations from Fellowship of the Ring illustrate this:

Fear seemed to stretch out a vast hand, like a dark cloud rising in the East and looming up to engulf him.

~FotR p60

Note the foreshadowing of the presence of the Dark Lord virtually reaching across Middle Earth to the Shire, in the shape of Fear. Note that this is not mere foreshadowing; the fear is real, and "seems" to stretch out from the East. Is this mere description for the sake of effect? No, it is reality that Tolkien is describing, in terms of his cosmos, and Frodo is for the first time perceiving that reality that lies behind that which he has always "known" to be real.

(Gandalf speaking)'There was more than one power at work, Frodo. The Ring was trying to get back to its master .... it abandoned Gollum. Only to be picked up by the most unlikely person imaginable: 'Bilbo from the Shire!'
'Behind that 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. And that may be an encouraging thought.'
'It is not,' said Frodo.'

~FotR p65

Setting aside Frodo's disagreement regarding encouragement a moment, who is doing the meaning? Who does Gandalf mean by it? Gandalf is an emissary from the West. He is a Maiar, who has learned great wisdom in Lorien of the West. Before that, he was amongst those who witnessed the Ainulindalë of Ilúvatar. He was in the presence of Ilúvatar before the making of Arda. So this meaning is being done either by Manwe and Varda, or by Eru. Since Manwe and Varda are viceroys of Eru, the meaning is ultimately Eru's. The Walls of Arda cannot prevent their Maker from sending messages into Arda to be heard by the Valar. Nor can they prevent the direct action of their Maker. Nor can those Walls prevent their maker from being present in Arda, even if Eru has not taken bodily shape as have the Valar. Gandalf's words here and elsewhere signify a consistent and purposeful working of Eru within Arda, even though Eru does not physically enter Arda as did the Valar of the Silmarillion.

'Of course, my dear Frodo, it was dangerous for you; and that has troubled me deeply. But there was so much at stake that I had to take some risk---though even when I was far away there has never been a day when the Shire has not been guarded by watchful eyes.

FotR ;69

Gandalf, as emissary of the Valar and Eru, reveals the heart of Eru in this kindly word to Frodo. If Eru can create a being who is as kindly and caring as Gandalf, Eru Himself must necessarily be at least as kindly and caring, and very likely much more.

A great dread fell on [Frodo], as if he was awaiting the pronouncement of some doom that he had long foreseen and vainly hoped might after all never be spoken. An overwhelming longing to rest and remain at peace by Bilbo's side in Rivendell filled all his heart. At last with an effort he spoke, and wondered to hear his own word, as if some other will was using his small voice.
'I will take the Ring,' [Frodo] said, 'though I do not know the way.'
Elrond raised his eyes and looked at him, and Frodo felt his heart pierced by a sudden keenness of the glance. 'If I understand aright all that I have heard,' he said, 'I think that this task is appointed for you, Frodo; and that if you do not find a way, no one will.'

~FotR p284

As if some other will? Any honest reader of Tolkien knows in his or her bones that the "as if" is virtually a signal that, indeed, what is about to be described, is the reality. Some other will? What will? Appointed? By whom? Again, either Manwe and Varda, or Eru.

Note also the dread of a pronouncement, and of all people, it is Frodo himself who speaks the dreaded pronouncement! ... as if another will was using his small voice. Here in poignant story, is a microcosm of the immense debate between free will and suffering, and the answer, if I may make so bold as to use that term, is "both/and". Because story, reflecting reality, is wrought from whole cloth. It's only in proposition that we can dissect such things. In other words, Frodo has made a choice, and Frodo is that choice made by Eru.

'You cannot pass,' [Gandalf] said. The orcs stood still, and a dead silence fell. 'I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor. You cannot pass. The dark fire will not avail you, flame of Udûn. Go back to the Shadow! You cannot pass.'

~FotR p344
What is the Secret Fire, this flame of Anor? It is not merely the Elvin Ring he wears. It's something that is greater than the fire or might of the Balrog, of any demon, and must be greater than the source of the Balrog's power, Morgoth. There is only one Being greater than Morgoth: Ilúvatar. Gandalf is Eru's hand in Middle Earth, the most direct embodiment of the will of Eru.

[Melkor] had gone often alone into the void places seeking the Imperishable Flame; for desire grew hot within him to being into Being things of his own, and it seemed to him that Ilúvatar took no thought for the Void, and he was impatient of its emptiness. Yet he found not the Fire, for it is with Ilúvatar.

~Sil p16
The Imperishable Flame is the Secret Fire of Anor. It is with Eru/Ilúvatar. Gandalf is its wielder, in Arda. Eru is very much interested in the details of Middle Earth, very much concerned with the 'fortunes' of the Free Peoples, which are of his making. The Children of Eru, who are the Eldar, Edain, Dwarves, and Hobbits, are the special province of Eru. It is a shortsighted reading that thinks Eru is not at the back of, the power behind all that is good in, LotR, does not care for, and has no mercy or pity on all that goes on in Middle Earth.

In The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien has woven Eru into the deep fabric of Middle Earth.

[davem]

LmP

I think its possible to interpret all those references to 'meaning' in another way. I was listening again last night to Ronald Hutton's talk at Birmingham 'Tolkien the Pagan'. He made the point that the version of the Silmarillion that provided the background to LotR was the one produced in the 20's (a decade which he refers to in a letter to his son Michael, describing how, due to his 'wickedness & sloth' he failed to go to mass, & where he had virtually put aside his faith), which was far more 'pagan' in form & style. The Valar were little different to the Classical Gods, with their tendency to infighting & squabbling, their marriages & production of children, etc.

Hutton made the point that Tolkien was deeply upset at accusations by early reviewers that LotR was 'athiestic' or agnostic & grabbed eagerly onto any suggestions from readers that suggested a Christian interpretation of Galadriel as the Virgin Mary, Lembas as the Host, etc. Tolkien wanted very much at that time to be accepted as a Catholic author & played up those interpretations. Remember that it was in the post-LotR period that he embarked on a major re-write of the Sil, mainly with the intention of bringing into line with his Catholic faith.

No, to the references to 'meaning'. The references are very vague. I think a far more 'pagan' alternative to Eru is available – Wyrd: the Northern equivalent of 'fate'/'destiny'. This is an impersonal 'force' (although given symbolic form in the Norns). All mentions of 'meaning' in the text can be interpreted in the light of Wyrd. The characters have destinies to fulfil, but this doesn't have to be interpreted in a Christian sense.

As I said, if read in the light of the (later) Sil (ie the one produced & published by Christopher in 1977) LotR can be interpreted as you suggest, & appears to conform with Christianity, with Eru playing the role of the Christian God in the way you suggest. If read in the light of the pre-LotR ('pagan') Sil our interpretation may be very different. In that work Eru exists but plays little part in events, leaving that sort of thing to the Gods, who, as I said, are hardly perfect representations of Angelic beings.

[Aiwendil]

Davem: I think the basic point you make above is correct (i.e. that without the Silmarillion, LotR can be read in a more 'pagan' light and that the Silmarillion became more Catholic post-LotR) - but I think you exaggerate the degree to which pre- and post-LotR Silmarillions differ.

The Valar were little different to the Classical Gods, with their tendency to infighting & squabbling, their marriages & production of children, etc.

This is true of the Lost Tales, but we ought to note that by '37 Quenta Silmarillion (i.e. immediately pre-LotR) these elements were gone (save marriage, which of course persisted into the final versions). Most importantly, the Valar had already become more thoroughly good or 'Angelic'.

In that work Eru exists but plays little part in events, leaving that sort of thing to the Gods, who, as I said, are hardly perfect representations of Angelic beings.

Where do you see an increase in the role assigned to Eru in the later Silmarillion? I agree that the work at this point was more religious, and of course there is the 'Athrabeth'. But Eru's role in the Silmarillion proper seems to me to be almost identical to his earlier role.