The atrocity of the Akallabêth

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

Numenor requires Eru's incarnation into Arda

I think you are misreading the Atrabeth; Eru's incarnation is required so as to finnally remove all traces of Melkor's marring.

Originally Posted by davem

Eru intevenes into the world in a major way for the only time

What about the coming of the Children? Is that a lesser even on the grand scheme of things than the shaping of a planet, which would be meaningless without them?

Originally Posted by davem

Tolkien's comment that 'already it is too close to a parody of Christianity' shows his discomfort with the idea of Eru incarnating into M-e

I disagree. I believe it shows his discomfort with the fact that his story would explicitly contain the Christian religion, which he considered, in Letter #131, fatal to a story - a recurrent idea in the letters.

Originally Posted by davem

In other words, Eru can either be a 'mystery' - ie he can remain outside the world altogether

He doesn't remain outside altogether. I would like to invite you to review the refferences I gave in post #189, which show Eru's continuous participation in the story. He is not present as a person, but through his deeds and interventions.

[davem]

We have to distinguish between the reason for having an 'Eru' - to make the world monotheistic & provide an account of Arda'a origin - & Eru as a character. If we take the original Silmarillion (which was effectively limited to the First Age) Eru is not a 'player' - he lights the blue touch paper & retires to watch the fireworks. Bringing him into the story as an active participant as in Numenor makes him a character in the story. Creating the Children ws an act that happened 'in Eternity', before time, & is part of the role he plays as creative force. His only real intervention into the world is in Numenor, & that's the problem, because argue & justify it as you will, the first time anyone apart from the Ainur encounters Eru they meet something so overwhelmingly terrifying as to make them feel neither love nor respect for him, but simple terror.

This is not a question of whether a single omnipotent deity is necessary to the plot, but the kind of deity that is. And Eru is not a transcendent mystery, nor is he a loving compassionate Father - he is a petulant, angry Artist, who will smash & kill what 'offends' him.

I can't accept the point that the Valar lay down their authority because the Children are involved - that didn't stop them going in at the end of the First Age & stomping all over the Children who had gone over to Melkor.

Ultimately the Valar provoked the Numenorean revolt - they 'rewarded' the faithful Edain with longer life but not with immortality. What message does that send out? More life is a good thing, postponing death is a good thing, not dying when you were 'intended' is a good thing. And what justification did the Numenoreans use when they defied the Valar - all of the above.

Eru's incarnation is required so as to finally remove all traces of Melkor's marring...
I believe it shows his discomfort with the fact that his story would explicitly contain the Christian religion, which he considered, in Letter #131, fatal to a story - a recurrent idea in the letters.

Which is Tolkien's choice - Tolkien decides that it is the 'only way'. And the point is this 'only way' introduces something 'fatal' into the Legendarium. Hence, for Tolkien to make such a 'fatal' addition he must have been driven by an overwhelming & unavoidable necessity. And that necessity has nothing to do with the 'fact' that Eru's entry into Arda is the 'only way' to remove the traces of Melkor from the stuff of Arda - Tolkien could equally well have decided that the 'only way' for all trace of Melkor to be removed was for all the Dwarves to simultaneously shave off their beards, or for all the Elves to juggle geese for 2 hours straight on the first Thursday in December.

In other words, Tolkien could have decided that anything at all could have 'purified' Arda, but he chose the one thing which he considered 'fatal' to any invented myth - the introduction of Primary World religion (specifically the Christian religion) ...

or did he?

As I stated, I don't think that we are dealing here with the introduction of Christianity into the Legendarium, & I don't believe that the justification given in the Athrabeth is the whole story. The incarnation of Eru in the Athrabeth is necessary in order to redeem Eru, not to redeem the world. Arda was not created perfect & then subject to a Fall - it was (as Tolkien stated) created already Fallen - by Eru's choice (in that he chose to create the world with Melkor's corruption inherent in it & further to allow Melkor to enter into it & do pretty much as he wished - there is no 'ideal' state for Arda to return to - Arda cannot be returned to an 'Edenic' state, because in Arda there was never an Eden. Men cannot be returned to their 'original, unfalllen' state, because they were never actually unfallen & never dwelt in an unfallen world.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

If we take the original Silmarillion (which was effectively limited to the First Age) Eru is not a 'player'
...
His only real intervention into the world is in Numenor

I would call this the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance; even if most of his actions are invisible to recorded history, the previous quotes I gave, of which I have the nagging feeling you continue to ignore, show that he is not passive at all.

Originally Posted by davem

Creating the Children ws an act that happened 'in Eternity', before time,

Actually, if the Eruhini were created before time, they would be Ainur. They aren't.

Originally Posted by davem

I can't accept the point that the Valar lay down their authority because the Children are involved - that didn't stop them going in at the end of the First Age & stomping all over the Children who had gone over to Melkor.

Considering that

Originally Posted by Osanwe kenta

[Melkor] knew that Manwe was bound by the commands and injunctions of Eru, and would do this or abstain from that in accordance with them, always, even knowing that Melkor would break them as it suited his purpose.

Originally Posted by Atrabeth Finrod ah Andreth

the designs of Eru ... governed all the operations of the faithful Valar

we can only surmise that even this was a result from a direct and current command [- or a past and indirect one.].

Originally Posted by davem

More life is a good thing, postponing death is a good thing, not dying when you were 'intended' is a good thing.

Acccording to the Atrabeth, all these were good before all Men started worshipping Melkor. After that, their nature became tainted.

Originally Posted by davem

Which is Tolkien's choice - Tolkien decides that it is the 'only way'.

Yes, because Melkor was the greatest of all the Ainur; his might surpassed them, and was second to Eru only; this might became the corrupting power in the creation, which cannot be erased save by Eru. The fall of the most gifted is a recurrent motive: Melkor, Feanor, the Numenoreans.

Originally Posted by davem

there is no 'ideal' state for Arda to return to - Arda cannot be returned to an 'Edenic' state, because in Arda there was never an Eden.

There was a specific moment in time when the marring moved from a conceptual and moral level to a physical one - the coming of Melkor to Arda at the building of Utumno

Originally Posted by Of the beginning of days, Silmarillion

And though the Valar knew naught of it as yet, nonetheless the evil of Melkor and the blight of his hatred flowed out thence, and the Spring of Arda was marred. Green things fell sick and rotted, and rivers were choked with weeds and slime, and fens were made, rank and poisonous, the breeding place of flies; and forests grew dark and perilous, the haunts of fear; and beasts became monsters of horn and ivory and dyed the earth with blood.

Men cannot be returned to their 'original, unfalllen' state, because they were never actually unfallen & never dwelt in an unfallen world.

Men are created unfallen by Eru; Silmarillion (and more so Atrabeth) reffers to a certain moment when the marring of Men occured, after their coming.

Originally Posted by davem

And Eru is not a transcendent mystery, nor is he a loving compassionate Father - he is a petulant, angry Artist, who will smash & kill what 'offends' him.

This view is in stark contradiction with that of the valar and the elves - and of the faithful Men. Concening the denial that Eru is good and that his work will end in good, it is said in HoME X by Manwe:

Originally Posted by Of the severence of marriage, Later Quenta Silmarillion

This the Marrer hath denied, and in this denial is the root of evil, and its end is in despair.

[Elmo]

Well don't they realise Eru has given us good reasons to feel this way...

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

But he is not an active participant in the world - he is not an actor within time - he does not do anything in the world until Numenor

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.

Originally Posted by davem

One cannot simply state 'Eru is beyond human value judgements because he is so much greater than Man

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.

Originally Posted by davem

so are the Valar, & no-one feels it is wrong to judge their actions

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.

Originally Posted by davem

Tolkien is the most ready of any of us to do that very thing.

I wouldn't be so sure .

Originally Posted by davem

Melkor is also much greater than Man & his actions & motives could equally be characterised as beyond our understanding

I for one don't find his actions surprising or unexplainable, at least in the context of this work.

Originally Posted by davem

No - their origin was in the Music. They may not have come into physical being until after the creation, but they existed in the mind of Eru from before the creation.

I am afraid you are seriously downplaying Eru's continous role and participation into Arda, as the continuous source of human life. In time, the mortal Men will be the only sentient, embodied creatures to rule Arda.

Originally Posted by davem

According to Elvish tradition as set out by Finrod - can we accept this as a 'fact' within the mythology or is it simply speculation?

I don't find it hard to believe that an untainted being can enjoy correctly the gifts of divinity.

Originally Posted by davem

Only in the beginning. Its clear that by the time of his fall he was far from superior.

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.

Originally Posted by davem

And once again, it is Tolkien's choice that the 'only way' for Eru to deal with this problem is Eru's incarnation - the introduction of such a 'fatal flaw' requires some serious justification - why paint himself into a corner where the 'only' solution is something he disapproves so strongly of?

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.

Originally Posted by davem

No, the corruption (potential at least & arguably (argued by Tolkien himself btw) here inevitable came in with the dissonance introduced by Melkor & Eru's choice to create a world with such an 'inevitability' inherent.

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.

Originally Posted by davem

Men are born into a world which is by its nature & in its creation, corrupt.

Originally Posted by Atrabeth

'Matter' is not regarded as evil or opposed to 'Spirit'. Matter was wholly good in origin. It remained a 'creature of Eru' and still largely good, and indeed self-healing, when not interfered with: that is, when the latent evil intruded by Melkor was not deliberately roused and used by evil minds.

Originally Posted by Myths Transformed

...the foundations of this world are good, and it turns by nature to good, healing itself from within by the power that was set there in its making; and evil in Arda would fail and pass away if it were not renewed from without: that is: that comes from wills and being [sic] that are other than Arda itself.

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. ".

We're still dealing with the Eru we are presented with in the story - not the opinions of various characters - or statements about him by Tolkien -

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.

[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.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

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.

Or if we count the appearance of the Eruhini, the action of Eru's imperishable flame at the heart of the world, his converses with Manwe, all the other interventions Manwe saw in his vision and all the new things that appear in each new age, which dont have Ainulindale as their source. There is no single evidence that Eru stops being interested in creation, quite the contrary. Although this wrong belief is cherrished by Melkor and Sauron.

Originally Posted by davem

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.

I am really curious what means you have of judging a transcendent being, whether in a real or imaginary setting. That is a territory which neither science nor mind can enter. We don't know the purposes and the effects of actions - esspecially since he is the ultimate alchemist, able to transform his actions from divine punishments to divine gifts - or other's actions ("but it seemed that [Melkor's music's] most triumphant notes were taken by the other and woven into its own solemn pattern"). I am really looking forward to your answer.

Originally Posted by davem

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.

It wasn't characters to state that, it were his own notes, in Myths Transformed. That you continue to disregard the position the author gives to certain characters in his own created world is your own choice.

Originally Posted by davem

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?

Because it's a false analogy, the two can never be compared; one is the All-source, the other is just a creation.

Originally Posted by davem

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.

I really don't follow why you are using this "red herring" on me. I was initially talking about Melkor's power at the time when he started his subjugation of the matter of Arda, and now you are bringing the discussion to the end of this story.

Originally Posted by davem

Why was it 'almost inevitable'? He was writing the story.

Yes, he was writting it with the purpose of reflecting a splinter of Light, hence the almost inevitability.

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.

I am afraid we both consumed this part of the discussion. We agree that marring was potentially there, but not yet manifest to the inhabitants of Arda. I propose we agree to disagree on how real the potential marring was and how un-real the un-marring state was.

Originally Posted by davem

And to jump to the subject of another thread, is Melkor not also 'one of his own'?

An interesting thought. I would argue that, considering the vast differential of power between Melkor on one side (and possibly Sauron and the rest of the fallen maiar) and the Eruhini on the other side, that Eru's adamancy would extend solely to the second cathegory - they have little if any chances in fighting corruption.

Originally Posted by davem

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.

Yes, but you are ignoring relevant information, you are refusing the given context and so you are effectively taking things out of context. I doubt the value of deriving conclusions from such an enterprise.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I would call this the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance; even if most of his actions are invisible to recorded history, the previous quotes I gave, of which I have the nagging feeling you continue to ignore, show that he is not passive at all.

But he is not an active participant in the world - he is not an actor within time - he does not do anything in the world until Numenor. I'm attempting to get at the effect he has on the thinking of the inhabitants & how they think about him. Its his character that is at issue - we can't ignore the fact that the major part played by Eru (after starting things off is one of destruction & thus there is (to my mind) the requirement for him to make amends.

One cannot simply state 'Eru is beyond human value judgements because he is so much greater than Man - so are the Valar, & no-one feels it is wrong to judge their actions, or critique their characters - Tolkien is the most ready of any of us to do that very thing. Melkor is also much greater than Man & his actions & motives could equally be characterised as beyond our understanding . The point is, once those beings enter into the world & become active participants (rather than vague 'influences') they become open to analysis & criticism.

Actually, if the Eruhini were created before time, they would be Ainur. They aren't.

No - their origin was in the Music. They may not have come into physical being until after the creation, but they existed in the mind of Eru from before the creation.

Acccording to the Atrabeth, all these were good before all Men started worshipping Melkor. After that, their nature became tainted.

According to Elvish tradition as set out by Finrod - can we accept this as a 'fact' within the mythology or is it simply speculation?

Yes, because Melkor was the greatest of all the Ainur; his might surpassed them, and was second to Eru only; this might became the corrupting power in the creation, which cannot be erased save by Eru. The fall of the most gifted is a recurrent motive: Melkor, Feanor, the Numenoreans.

Only in the beginning. Its clear that by the time of his fall he was far from superior. And once again, it is Tolkien's choice that the 'only way' for Eru to deal with this problem is Eru's incarnation - the introduction of such a 'fatal flaw' requires some serious justification - why paint himself into a corner where the 'only' solution is something he disapproves so strongly of?

There was a specific moment in time when the marring moved from a conceptual and moral level to a physical one - the coming of Melkor to Arda at the building of Utumno

No, the corruption (potential at least & arguably (argued by Tolkien himself btw) here inevitable came in with the dissonance introduced by Melkor & Eru's choice to create a world with such an 'inevitability' inherent.

Men are created unfallen by Eru; Silmarillion (and more so Atrabeth) refers to a certain moment when the marring of Men occured, after their coming.

Men are born into a world which is by its nature & in its creation, corrupt. Men & Elves are more prone to fall because of the nature of the world they inhabit, & the very presence of the immortal Elves is in itself guaranteed to inspire a feeling of wrongness in the fact of their (men's) own mortality.

This view is in stark contradiction with that of the valar and the elves - and of the faithful Men. Concening the denial that Eru is good and that his work will end in good, it is said in HoME X by Manwe:

We're still dealing with the Eru we are presented with in the story - not the opinions of various characters - or statements about him by Tolkien - does the Eru we are presented with live up to the hype?