The atrocity of the Akallabêth

[The Saucepan Man]

*SpM guiltily eyes the papers on his desk, due a spot of shuffling, and with a sigh and no little reluctance, enters the debate.*

Originally Posted by davem

Either Sauron corrupted them - as you stated there, or they were already 'corrupted' & that is why they succumbed to him. You seem to be seeking to win the argument by adopting both positions.

To be fair, both positions are tenable. The Numenoreans were already, to a degree, corrupted prior to Sauron’s influence. That existing corruption was magnified and nurtured by Sauron following his arrival in Numenor. That the latter was the result of Sauron’s influence does not absolve those Numenoreans who succumbed to it from responsibility, for they had free will whether to accept or reject it.

However, my main purpose in posting was to offer the view that, whether one accepts the drowning of Numenor, and its attendant devastation, as an atrocity or not surely comes down to whether one accepts the “real life” (in terms of belief, at least) deity from which Tolkien’s characterisation (such as it is) of his fictional character, Eru, is drawn. In other words, if one can accept a God who perpetrated incidents such as Sodom and Gomorrah and the Noachian Flood as the act of a God worth believing in, then one can surely accept Eru’s active participation in the drowning of Numenor in similar vein. If one cannot, then the devastation wrought by Eru will indeed seem like the unjust and unforgiveable “hissy fit” which davem characterises it as.

As it happens, I rather agree with davem. But then, I have never really approved of the some of the actions of the God of the Old Testament.

But isn’t that beside the point? A debate between those who believe in the God from whom the inspiration for Eru was drawn and those who do not (or who do not accept that, if he exists, he would have perpetrated such deeds) as to whether Eru’s actions were just, or believable, or acceptable, can surely never be resolved. One’s perspective is firmly grounded in one’s personal beliefs.

I rather think that the debate might proceed more constructively by taking up the gauntlet thrown down by Child. How can those of us who cannot accept this intervention by Eru as just, or who find it difficult to perceive him as a credibly drawn fictional character, reconcile this with our love of Tolkien’s works and how does it impact upon our understanding of them?

Oh, and …

Originally Posted by davem

And even if he was the reader is not required to accept, let alone agree with, what the author says.

Originally Posted by davem

I don't remember him anywhere stating he was trying to reveal the truth about God.

I think of the endless debates that we had on the canonicity thread, and my flabber is well and truly ghasted.