The atrocity of the Akallabêth

[Lalwendë]

Thenamir, only problem with your analysis is that Eru's only action was to take the Undying Lands away from the mortal world - the destruction of Numenor and the flooding of the west of Middle-earth (something we don't think about - how many people died there?) was consequential.

The other problem is that Eru didn't send any signs or warnings, the Valar did all this. The 'Rules' were also laid down by the Valar, not by Eru.

I always find it quite interesting that these people in all these ages have no Rules laid out for them, nobody to tell them what to do, they must figure it out for themselves. Only the Elves of Valinor have any kind of Rules, and we're only assuming that as fact because they live close to the Valar; it may in fact be that they too have no rules. Compare that with the Bible where God is extremely active, handing out rules and regulations like there's no tomorrow (heh, a kind of cosmic nanny state ) and sticking his oar in all over the place; Christians (and Jews and Muslims) have clear boundaries so it's fair enough if they get smote or a plague of boils inflicted on them or whatever. The people of Arda don't have that.

The only instance where a Rule is set is the one set by the Valar on not going to the West. And let's face it, it was a pretty stupid thing for the Valar to do, to allow men and Elves to live so close to one another and expect the mortals not to be intrigued by the possibility of endless life, anyone would be. These kinds of conflicts are common place in fantasy and sci-fi: Eloi and Morlocks in HG Wells, Inhabitants of Gormenghast Vs Villagers/Bright carvers, Muggles and Wizards... So, a Rule had to be set, but it wasn't likely to hold that long, Men being the intelligent, curious beings that they are.

And on the children of 'evil' parents - there is absolutely no reason that children will automatically follow in their parents' footsteps. Otherwise we would be doing unspeakable things to the offspring of killers and criminals today; case in point, the children of serial killers Fred and Rose West are often interviewed about the horrors they saw and were forced to take part in (worse than what Sauron had his followers do!), and one of the results of that is that they are even more determined never ever to follow that kind of path. So I'm afraid that saying the kids of the Black Numenoreans would have followed in their footsteps simply does not wash. I refuse ever to accept this as a justification and I refuse to accept that Tolkien, a devoted father before all else, would have even contemplated this.

Originally Posted by Raynor

What does it mean you accept it? That you think what he does is good? Or that a transcendent being can err? Or can it do actual evil?

I mean that I can accept all kinds of different beliefs as they are presented - I can understand them and see how they work without having to believe them myself. Some things that one god may do may not be in accordance with my own moral code but I can still see them as being consistent with that particular faith or belief. Eruism may not be for me but this does not stop me from seeing how it works, in much the same way that although I don't follow Islam I can see completely how it works.

Originally Posted by Raynor

In retrospect? He was writting in his letters as early as, arguably, 1951, that "myth and fairy-story must, as all art, reflect and contain in solution elements of moral and religious truth (or error), but not explicit, not in the known form of the primary 'real' world." The famous letter #131, the preface to the Silmarillion.

A comment about the 'reasoning' behind his writing is very different to the kind of textual analysis he was carrying out in response to letters from his readers who were responding to the text on the page. I'm talking about where he has a letter from someone saying "Oooh, Gandalf reminds me a bit of...." and Tolkien responds to that in much the same way as we respond to one another in discussion about the printed text. Tolkien's thoughts as he drafts are different - but even then he is not prevented from acting as a reader in response to his won work. That's what writers do - critically examine and edit their work in the draft, and frequently respond to it by noticing other meanings they had not thought about.

Actually, that's an interesting quote as it is Tolkien saying that any kind of moral truth must never ever be explicit and must not be able to be compared to the 'real world'.

Compare this to: "Now can we even say that a god like Eru is like the God known by all Christians anyway?". Aren't your statements contradictory?

No. Not all Christians see God in the same way. Many see God as entirely Good, a God who only does the nice things like give hope and courage and make kittens etc. Many see God as more involved also in the bad things such as war and death and destruction. Example: my ex-catholic grandmother told me God would smite me down for this that and the other, whereas my evangelistic great aunt was full of tales of how God was forgiving and gentle and evil was the work of bad people, nothing to do with God. Eru is not the kind of God a lot of Christians know today.

How does the whole thing hold together, if you state that "he is not 'nice'" but he is repeatedly depicted as good, and that considering him bad is the root of evil? Please explain.

That's because he is omnipotent. It's humans who decide what is nice and pretty and cuddly (our kind of good) - morally correct (a god's kind of good) according to an omnipotent god is not necessarily the same thing. Gods are beyond our humble ideas of 'nice'. So, to me, it's not 'good' that Eru creates Melkor, but to Eru it is indeed 'good' as it's just the way things are, and if he's omnipotent then his creating Melkor must also be 'good'. Maybe it helps if we have good for humans and Good for gods - to distinguish them?