Was Eru a Sadist?

[Lhunardawen]

Well, those accounts weren't written, or even dictated by Eru Himself, so we're only getting opinions here

The mere fact that Eru himself has said those words in the Ainulindalë leads us to what kind of being (more like deity, actually) he really is. I would not say he is being psychoanalyzed by interpreting his words, because don't we (rather subconciously) get to know more about a person when we hear him speak? Esty has actually given quotes that are quite straight to the point, thus there is no need for deep analysis.

[Hot, crispy nice hobbit]

"Our Father in Heaven, Hallowed be thy na..."

ZAP!

"I AM YOUR MOTHER, YOU BLIND MORON!"

Yep, Eru/God/Budda/Allah is sadistic alright. He/She/It allows freedom of speech so that we mortals can murder each other at slight disagreements, all for His/Her/Its entertainment.

But let's get back to the question: Was Middle-Earth just a chess-board for Eru? You know, that allegory is actually leave room for another question: why isn't there any instances where Eru stepped in to pull out the source of his annoyance? We read the rebellion the Evil ones. We also read of the disobedience of the Children. But never we read of Eru lifting a finger against them, except in the case of Numenor. But in the case of Numenor, Manwe actually beaconed Eru to take control of the situation.

So are we not left with the image that the Valar are the actual players in the game of chess in Middle-Earth? Eru seemed to take more of a referee's place.

[HerenIstarion]

why isn't there any instances where Eru stepped in to pull out the source of his annoyance

If I were a parent, my will would be that my children behaved properly and tied up their room, but my will would also be that they were free. If I were to find the room in a mess, I would certainly have my will contradicted in one way, but carried along in another, since my children were free to mess it up. Furthermore it is question of my priorities, what is it I like best - tidy room or free children. (I would certainly prefer both at once, but if they refuse to clean up?...)

That's for it, and I would heartily remind participants it is not the place to vent one's spleen for the injustice (have you thought, by the way, whence such a concept as 'injustice' emerges?) of the universe, but the discussion board

thank you

[Lalaith]

As Olorin has already pointed out, the question of Eru's 'sadism' can be asked of any concept of an omniscient and morally perfect Creator who allows evil and sorrow to exist in his creation.
It is a problem and paradox that has tormented philosophers and theologians since time immemorial. Many pagan religions resolved the problem by conceiving of gods who were not all-powerful and had moral flaws. Aristotle meanwhile conceived of a 'first mover' that was perfect, pure thought, thinking only of itself, thus unconcerned with our doings.
Eru does seem to be conceived more in the line of the Christian and Muslim deities, who are held to have more active and moral involvement in their creation. However it is interesting that no-one in Middle Earth actually appears to worship Eru, ask him to intercede on their behalf or even to mention him. So perhaps Eru is more of an Aristotlean 'prime mover' than he first appears to be.

[davem]

I suppose it depends how 'worship' is defined - certainly there's nothing along the lines of Christian style worship - but there is worship of a kind in both Aman & Numenor. I don't think Eru can be thought of as a 'first mover', as He is clearly involved in the world - if mostly indirectly through the Valar, though He does intervene directly at certain points - as in the destruction of Numenor, &, less blatently, possibly in bringing about the destruction of the Ring.

One thing occurs as I write, & I don't know if it belongs here, or is worth starting a new thread for - in one of the notes to Osanwe Kenta its stated that all foresight comes from Eru - knowledge of the future can only be passed to beings within the world by Eru directly, as only to Him is full knowlege of the future accesible, so Eru must be the source of Frodo & Sam's visions in Galadriel's Mirror. But Galadriel says the Mirror is dangerous as a guide of deeds, because not everything it shows comes to pass. Yet, everything they see in the Mirror does come true, & this time at least, it is showing the truth.

Does this mean that Galadriel's Mirror is functioning differently when Frodo & Sam look into it - but if it is, would that mean their future is fixed from that point & Eru is showing them exactly what WILL happen?

But if the Mirror is only showing 'possible' futures, how come every one of the things they see comes about? If they are seeing the real, actual future, then its source can only be Eru.

So Eru is intervening directly to show them the future by means of Galadriel's mirror?

The implications of this seem quite significant - unless I'm completely wrong in my interpretation.

[HerenIstarion]

davem, you probably had the following in mind?:

Osanwe-kenta

Pengolodh here elaborates (though it is not necessary for his argument) this matter of "foresight". No mind, he asserts, knows what is not in it. All that it has experienced is in it, though in the case of the Incarnate, dependent upon the instruments of the hröa, some things may be "forgotten", not immediately available for recollection. But no part of the "future" is there, for the mind cannot see it or have seen it: that is, a mind placed in time. Such a mind can learn of the future only from another mind which has seen it. But that means only from Eru ultimately, or mediately from some mind that has seen in Eru some part of His purpose (such as the Ainur who are now the Valar in Eä). An Incarnate can thus only know anything of the future, by instruction derived from the Valar, or by a revelation coming direct from Eru. But any mind, whether of the Valar or of the Incarnate, may deduce by reason what will or may come to pass. This is not foresight, not though it may be clearer in terms and indeed even more accurate than glimpses of foresight. Not even if it is formed into visions seen in dream, which is a means whereby "foresight" also is frequently presented to the mind.

I can not make my own mind as of whether Galadriel was deducting or having foresight, though...

[Bêthberry]

I think you might be on to something, Lalaith in asking which 'model' of deity is suggested here.

We have Tolkien's statement that he tried "consciously so in the revision" to suggest a Christian ethos and symbolism for his Legendarium. However, in also harkening back to the old Norse mythologies, he would find a different concept of deity--or certainly different deities who behaved with wilful abandon, excess, selfishness and selfcentredness, in short, with all the shortsightedness and lack of self control which humans possess. Are the tendencies of deities in the old heroic epics to be found in the Legendarium?

One other point, although Estelyn's dictionary definition suggests elements in sadism, it is incomplete in that it omits the dynamic nature of the tendency. Usually there is a willing partner, the masochist, who allows or submits to the game willingly. Sadism is not, simply, imposed cruelty but a dynamic relationship.

But another way to look at the question:

Does Eru play upon the emotional weaknesses of the people of Middle-earth? Are they free to control their proclivities so that they cannot be blindsided by him? Or surprised by the consequences of their own failings? Usually, in mythologies, it is the the secondary agent who is used to test and challenge the characters, not the main deity.

In Chrisitanity, that secondary agent is Satan, who has been understood in many different ways over the last four thousand centuries. He was not always the "grand and malevolent" figure, the great antagonist which Milton characterised in Paradise Lost but merely someone, an angel, sent to block or obstruct human activity in such a way as to teach people something about their own weaknesses and foibles. (I am here relying upon Elaine Pagels' book The Origin of Satan.

To borrow Tolkien's metaphor from "On Fairy Stories", there is much simmering in the great Cauldron of Story.

[Legolas]

Forgive the long quotes, but this was something Tolkien obviously thought to be very important and made it central to the progression of Man's kingdoms.

However it is interesting that no-one in Middle Earth actually appears to worship Eru, ask him to intercede on their behalf or even to mention him.

It is not so - both Men and Elves worshipped him (and dwarves, possibly).

Númenór is not 'Middle-earth' exactly, but it was no less a part of Arda. The Men of Númenór acknowledged and praised Eru upon the Pillar of Heaven...

The Silmarillion(*)

But in the midst of the land was a mountain tall and steep, and it was named the Meneltarma, the Pillar of Heaven, and upon it was a high place that was hallowed to Eru Ilúvatar, and it was open and unroofed, and no other temple or fane was there in the land of the Númenóreans.

Letter No. 156

The Númenóreans thus began a great new good, and as monotheists; but like the Jews (only more so) with only one physical centre of 'worship': the summit of the mountain Meneltarma 'Pillar of Heaven' – literally, for they did not conceive of the sky as a divine residence – in the centre of Númenor; but it had no building and no temple, as all such things had evil associations.

And the Downfall of Númenór essentially starts in the days of Tar-Ciryatan and his son as the Númenóreans clash with Manwë in wanting to go to Valinor and such. This leads directly to perhaps the most important factor - the divide among the Númenóreans and the cessation of praise for Eru upon the Pillar of Heaven.

But those that lived turned the more eagerly to pleasure and revelry, desiring ever more goods and more riches; and after the days of Tar-Ancalimon the offering of the first fruits to Eru was neglected, and men went seldom any more to the Hallow upon the heights of Meneltarma in the midst of the land.*

The Eldar, too, acknowledged and praised Eru as their sole creator and God.

In The Lord of the Rings the conflict is not basically about 'freedom', though that is naturally involved. It is about God, and His sole right to divine honour. [b]The Eldar and the Númenóreans believed in The One, the true God, and held worship of any other person an abomination[b]. Sauron desired to be a God-King, and was held to be this by his servants; if he had been victorious he would have demanded divine honour from all rational creatures and absolute temporal power over the whole world. (183)

The Elves also had their fall (at least the Noldorin Exiles) in denying Eru praise, for they left it behind in Aman, holding contempt for those who stayed there, along with their practices:

The High Elves were exiles from the Blessed Realm of the Gods (after their own particular Elvish fall) and they had no 'religion' (or religious practices, rather) for those had been in the hands of the gods, praising and adoring Eru 'the One', Ilúvatar the Father of All on the Mt. of Aman. (156)

Dwarves would've praised Eru also, at least in their beginnings:

...for Aulë had done this thing not out of evil desire to have slaves and subjects of his own, but out of impatient love, desiring children to talk to and teach, sharing with them the praise of Ilúvatar and his great love of the materials of which the world is made. (212)

This quote notes the progression of such worship to 'present' in the Middle-earth mindset. This letter goes into a discussion of Númenórean religion, but unfortunately, CT (or the other editor, Humphrey Carpenter) chose to cut the letter off after this statement.

We are in a time when the One God, Eru, is known to exist by the wise, but is not approachable save by or through the Valar, though He is still remembered in (unspoken) prayer by those of Númenórean descent. (297)

A further explanation comes of this progression later on:

Men have 'fallen' – any legends put in the form of supposed ancient history of this actual world of ours must accept that – but the peoples of the West, the good side are Re-formed. That is they are the descendants of Men that tried to repent and fled Westward from the domination of the Prime Dark Lord, and his false worship, and by contrast with the Elves renewed (and enlarged) their knowledge of the truth and the nature of the World. They thus escaped from 'religion' in a pagan sense, into a pure monotheist world, in which all things and beings and powers that might seem worshipful were not to be worshipped, not even the gods (the Valar), being only creatures of the One. And He was immensely remote. (156)

How did they fall? The treasures of the world won their attention, and the (envy of the) immortality/majesty of Valinor and the Elves won their hearts and mind. Even in the Faithful, those that did not push for war on Valinor, Elendil, his sons, and his men failed to reestablish worship of Eru, though they retained other Númenórean values:

the Faithful in Númenor, who had refused to take pan in the rebellion, [...] established a kind of diminished memory of Númenor in Exile on the coasts of Middle-earth – inheriting the hatred of Sauron, the friendship of the Elves, the knowledge of the True God, and (less happily) the yearning for longevity, and the habit of embalming and the building of splendid tombs – their only 'hallows': or almost so. But the 'hallow' of God and the Mountain had perished, and there was no real substitute. Also when the 'Kings' came to an end there was no equivalent to a 'priesthood': the two being identical in Númenórean ideas. So while God (Eru) was a datum of good Númenórean philosophy, and a prime fact in their conception of history. He had at the time of the War of the Ring no worship and no hallowed place. And that kind of negative truth was characteristic of the West, and all the area under Numenorean influence: the refusal to worship any 'creature', and above all no 'dark lord' or satanic demon, Sauron, or any other, was almost as far as they got. They had (I imagine) no petitionary prayers to God; but preserved the vestige of thanksgiving. [...] It later appears that there had been a 'hallow' on Mindolluin, only approachable by the King, where he had anciently offered thanks and praise on behalf of his people; but it had been forgotten. ... (156, continued below)

As Tolkien said often, the mixing of Man and Elf (in Dior and Earendil) served as part of the idea in Men eventually taking the Elves' place as rulers of the land ("The entering into Men of the Elven-strain is indeed represented as part of a Divine Plan for the ennoblement of the Human Race, from the beginning destined to replace the Elves") - this meant in terms of love for God too, which many could easily overlook. Aragorn would be the one to turn Gondor in the right direction again (as the Númenórean influence was excavated):

... It was re-entered by Aragorn, and there he found a sapling of the White Tree, and replanted it in the Court of the Fountain. It is to be presumed that with the reemergence of the lineal priest kings (of whom Lúthien the Blessed Elf-maiden was a foremother) the worship of God would be renewed, and His Name (or title) be again more often heard. But there would be no temple of the True God while Númenórean influence lasted. (156)

So why do we hear calls of Elbereth and petitions to the Valar (from Frodo, Gildor's party's song, Legolas, Sam, Damrod, etc.) instead of Eru? A note in paranethesis from the previously quoted letter explains...

Those under special Elvish influence might call on the angelic powers for help in immediate peril or fear of evil enemies. (footnote: The Elves often called on Varda-Elbereth, the Queen of the Blessed Realm, their especial friend, and so does Frodo.) (156)

The Elves still acknowledged the majesty and authority of the Valar; further, they recognized (were aware) that the Valar were in more of a position to help them - physically present in Arda - while the One is remote, subtle, and does not directly intervene often. It's just as one might call out to a guardian angel.

Olorin_TLA said

Basically, if a mortal were to act like Eru, we'd hope Saruon ate them.

This is not exactly the case; rather, it is presented in a misleading manner. If one were to act like Eru in terms of thinking they could create, dominate, etc., we would wish them to stop, but this is simply because a mortal *cannot* be Eru, nor if the mortal even had said power, could they exercise it in the gracious manner that Eru does. This is precisely why Morgoth and Sauron are hated, cause so much suffering, and ultimately fail.

Bethberry said

an angel, sent to block or obstruct human activity in such a way as to teach people something about their own weaknesses and foibles.

In 'sent to...', do you mean to imply that Satan was sent intentionally by God to do so?

As for the chessboard analogy, I do not think it works. If Middle-earth was a chessboard, there would be a number of different parties, but if you still reduced it to two sides - good and evil - each piece would be able to move itself. In that point of view, Eru is just as he is presented in the text - the Creator. He would've made the board and each piece, and place the restrictions on their movements (the parallel being the limitations of power); He would not be the one moving the pieces. Each piece has a will of its own.

[The Saucepan Man]

Anyone wants to place a bet how many pages this thread can carry on? Mine gamble would be somewhat around 11 (when folks on canonicity thread get wind (as I see you already started to) of what's going on.

Oh Eru, nooooooooooooooo!

It seems to me that, in responding to this question, we have three broad options:

• We can interpret Eru as God in our own world, which (as Lalaith notes in post # 15) raises age old questions to which there is and can be no definitive answer, such as why God allows suffering in the world.
  
  
• We can try to look at in it Tolkien’s terms and answer on the basis of our understanding of his concept of God (as davem suggested in post #8).
  
  
• Or we can discuss how we react as readers to Eru based on what we know about Him in the text (the key aspects of which are outlined by Estelyn in post #9).

Personally, I prefer the last option as Eru is a fictional character and should, to my mind, be discussed as such (although our reactions as readers will, I suppose, be influenced to a degree by our own personal beliefs). On basis of the quotes given by Estelyn and Legolas and the definition which Estelyn and Bêthberry give of “sadism”, I would conclude that Eru is most definately not a sadist. But, in giving His Children free will, He has to accept (as indeed he does) the consequences, ie that they have the potential to rebel and give rise to evil, the inevitable consequence of which is suffering on the part of individuals. To have it any other way would be to deny them free will, and what would be the point of that?

The question remains, however, why certain individuals are “selected” for suffering. Gandalf says, for example, that Bilbo was “meant” to find the Ring. The almost inevitable consequence of this is that he or (more likely) Frodo will be charged with the task of destroying it, if it is to be destroyed. This issue was, as davem indicates, explored in great depth in the Nebulous "It" and Absolutes thread. My own view is that, while Eru refrains from simply just stepping in whenever He wants (which would deny His Children their free will), He allows himself to do so when evil would otherwise prevail (or, to use H-I’s analogy, when the mess in the bedroom serves to undermine the structural order of the house ). But He never does so directly, but rather through His Children (such as Frodo), who still have a choice whether to go through with what He requires of them. Frodo could have turned back at any point, although that in itself raises an interesting question of what Eru would then have done to prevent Sauron’s total victory. Why Frodo? I think that it was because he was best suited to the task at hand. If he couldn’t have done it, then no one could have.

One further question arises in my mind, however. Are there such things as “natural” disasters in Arda (volcanoes, earthquakes and the like) or are all such phenomena the consequence of evil (in which case they will ultimately be the consequence of free will)? Such things cause suffering too, but if they are not the consequence of evil, then why does Eru allow them to exist within Arda? Did He give “nature” free will too?