The root of all Evil

[Barliman Butterbur]

Barley, I enjoy reading your posts!

Hail and well-met Sir (to utilize a phrase of the Wiccans)!

I have a comforting religious view that gives me a sense of cosmic purpose, and is the "Truth"!

What do you mean by "Truth" in quotation marks?

You seem to imply you wish you had a religion you feel is right.

I used to, but not any more.

I can assume no religion feels comforting or right to you.

That's right.

1. How can you know what you feel is right?

Precisely the same way you do, I expect, except perhaps for the belief that holy books represent the transmission of divine truth.

Feelings can be wrong.

Quite often so, but it also depends on what feelings we're talking about here.

What you feel does not determine truth.

I disagree. Don't you have a gut feeling about what's right or wrong, what's truth and what's false? Weren't you brought up to know the difference between right and wrong? Didn't you get such teachings right from your own religion? Don't you have formal knowledge about such things? I do!

If so, then you put yourself in place of God and look to yourself for what you "feel" is right.

I cannot put myself in God's place, because — assuming God's existence for the moment — I could not possible fathom what it is to be Her, as is clearly stated in all the religions which postulate Her existence.

Choosing whatever is comforting has led to chaos.

It depends on what kind of comfort you're talking about. Is not spiritual solace an important form of comfort, a primary reason to affiliate with a religion?

What if some people had a religion where they felt stealing was okay? And what about lying and cheating? Hitler felt killing Jews was right.

Now you're being ridiculous. Religions, by definition, aim at setting people on the right track. Religions do not preach evil. And Hitler was a maniac.

Truth doesn't contradict itself, i.e., if someone felt that something was right per their religious view and another person felt it was wrong per theirs, would they both be right?

It happens all the time: witness all the religious wars down through history. The problem is we go to war because we say "my religious truth is the real one and yours isn't." And don't forget the saying, "Truth is stranger than fiction." In fact as far as I'm concerned, mankind is utterly incapable of getting anywhere near the truth about Reality. Truth may not contradict itself (whatever that means), but men contradict themselves constantly and lose what small truths they have into the bargain.

How can there be any comfort in having a religious view that could possibly be an illusion?

As far as I'm concerned all the basic tenets of mainline religions are just that. We need our illusions!

Even the Bible (the revelation of God)

Let me stop you right there. I do not accept the existence of the God of holy books, nor do I accept holy books as divine revelation.

...[The Bible] exists and it reveals that only God is the Truth, not our feelings. It is a spiritual proof.

You are using circular reasoning. You are saying that since the Bible says it is the divine transmission of God's word, then it must be.

As far as I'm concerned, holy books are the works of men writing thousands of years ago, getting history all mixed up with common wisdom, their own agendas and their own attempts to explain God and the perennial questions. Religions are the products of the confluence of societies, time, and place.

HOWEVER: I have no objection to you or anyone believing anything — true or specious — AS LONG AS it leads to kindly and compassionate behavior towards self and others, which for me, is the whole point of a religion or other spiritual path.

Barley

 

[Gimmi]

Thanks for the reply Barley! Hope you don’t mind my “Memento-style” response!

kindly and compassionate behavior towards self and others, which for me, is the whole point of a religion or other spiritual path.

Christ said: "…the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel." The whole point of Christianity is the kingdom of God (eternal life). The requirements are to “repent”, (an admittance of our sinful nature, the understanding of God’s mercy in Christ, and a turning from sin to God, with full purpose of and endeavoring to obeying His Word) and to “believe in the Gospel” (the good news of Christ). His Word does include “kindly and compassionate behavior towards self and others” in that Christ says "'You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets."

You can have kindly and compassionate behavior towards self and others without religion as you seem to demonstrate. However, you can’t have the kingdom of God without Christ.

HOWEVER: I have no objection to you or anyone believing anything — true or specious — AS LONG AS it leads…

I have objections to people holding specious beliefs. I do attempt to object appropriately (which hasn’t always turned out to be the case! J)

You are using circular reasoning. You are saying that since the Bible says it is the divine transmission of God's word, then it must be.
As far as I'm concerned, holy books are the works of men writing thousands of years ago, getting history all mixed up with common wisdom, their own agendas and their own attempts to explain God and the perennial questions. Religions are the products of the confluence of societies, time, and place.

Yes, yes, yes… circular reasoning, the stumbling block. Doesn’t everyone reason in a circular manner, i.e., with a presupposition or maybe foundation? (Don’t answer, I don’t have time for a long philosophical debate on this, LOL!) You destroy the presupposition, you destroy the argument. My “presupposition” that everything circles back to is this: Scripture is truth. God speaks in it. It’s interesting that none of the prophets or apostles boast or credit themselves for what they pen. They do not provide proofs. What they do is credit God for it. It does not say you have salvation by finding your belief through human reason or proof, but rather a spiritual proof or testimony of the Spirit. Scripture becomes truly believed when it ceases to be another “holy book” written by men and becomes an internal truth, when you receive the gift of faith. As Paul says: “By grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.”

Let me stop you right there. I do not accept the existence of the God of holy books, nor do I accept holy books as divine revelation.

And that is your stumbling block. Without a foundation, an authority, you are open to endless, useless debates about what is “Truth” from illusion.

As far as I'm concerned all the basic tenets of mainline religions are just that. We need our illusions!

We need the “Truth”.

Truth may not contradict itself (whatever that means), but men contradict themselves constantly and lose what small truths they have into the bargain.

Because it is their own “small truths” or illusions.

And don't forget the saying, "Truth is stranger than fiction." In fact as far as I'm concerned, mankind is utterly incapable of getting anywhere near the truth about Reality.

Agreed, hence the testimony of the Spirit.

witness all the religious wars down through history. The problem is we go to war because we say "my religious truth is the real one and yours isn't

True, again because their religious truth come from themselves (an illusion) and not of God.

Now you're being ridiculous. Religions, by definition, aim at setting people on the right track. Religions do not preach evil. And Hitler was a maniac.

Am I ridiculous? What is religion? If it’s a man-made belief pursued with fervor, then I think I’m spot on. What’s right to some is way wrong to others. Hitler was a maniac, pursuing a belief with fervor.

Is not spiritual solace an important form of comfort, a primary reason to affiliate with a religion?

Yes and no. It is comfort, it is not always the primary reason to affiliate with a religion, though in some cases that may be the case. I “affiliate” with Christianity because of the Spirit’s effectual calling.

I cannot put myself in God's place, because — assuming God's existence for the moment — I could not possible fathom what it is to be Her, as is clearly stated in all the religions which postulate Her existence.

Neither can I. My warning is to not put oneself in God’s place by determining for oneself what is “Truth”.

Don't you have a gut feeling about what's right or wrong, what's truth and what's false? Weren't you brought up to know the difference between right and wrong? Didn't you get such teachings right from your own religion? Don't you have formal knowledge about such things? I do!

Through prayer and His Word I strive to do what’s right, though I often fail. (Just ask my kids, J) I try not to follow my gut, rather my heart, for the Spirit dwells there. I was brought up with western, christian values so I’m predisposed there, which I thank God for.

What do you mean by "Truth" in quotation marks?

God, His Word, Christ, the Spirit.

Hail and well-met Sir (to utilize a phrase of the Wiccans )!

Grace and Peace!

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

Thanks for the reply Barley!..

You're welcome. And please do not use my posts as an opportunity to preach your religion to me or to try to convert me or argue it with me. Stop proselytizing on my time. I am not going to get into it with you. I accept the wisdom of all religions, the doctrines of none.

Barley

 

[Gimmi]

And please do not use my posts as an opportunity to preach your religion to me or to try to convert me or argue it with me. Stop proselytizing on my time. I am not going to get into it with you. I accept the wisdom of all religions, the doctrines of none.

I did not mean to proselytize especially since I cannot convert anyone. You give me too much credit! I was merely attempting to answer the questions you asked of me and respond to your statements. Please accept my apology, I do not want to get into it with you either. That is not my intent.

Peace.

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

I did not mean to proselytize especially since I cannot convert anyone. You give me too much credit! I was merely attempting to answer the questions you asked of me and respond to your statements. Please accept my apology, I do not want to get into it with you either. That is not my intent.

Peace.

Thank you — you have my gratitude and respect! I look forward to future discussions with you about various aspects of Middle-earth and other subjects — perhaps even religion, as long as it is settled at the outset that we each have the right to our own beliefs, to live by them, and to take the consequences thereof.

Barley

 

[Gothmog]

To return to the question of this thread for a moment. I have been giving this much thought and am now ready to post my view.

Eru is indeed the "Root of All Evil". Does this mean that I am attributing Evil to Him? What a ludicrous idea, just as ludicrous as attributing Good to him. Looking at the Ainulindalë I see no evidence that Evil existed before the Ainur descended into the newly created Arda! When Eru speaks to Melkor and others of the Ainur about the music and what Melkor did, he speaks not of Evil acts or intents but of mistakes of perception on the part of Melkor.

The Music of the Ainur
Then Ilúvatar spoke, and he said: 'Mighty are the Ainur, and mightiest among them is Melkor; but that he may know, and all the Ainur, that I am Ilúvatar, those things that ye have sung, I will show them forth, that ye may see what ye have done. And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined.'

And later

'Behold your Music! This is your minstrelsy; and each of you shall find contained herein, amid the design that I set before you, all those things which it may seem that he himself devised or added. And thou, Melkor, wilt discover all the secret thoughts of thy mind, and wilt perceive that they are but a part of the whole and tributary to its glory.'

Then

And Ilúvatar spoke to Ulmo, and said: 'Seest thou not how here in this little realm in the Deeps of Time Melkor hath made war upon thy province? He hath bethought him of bitter cold immoderate, and yet hath not destroyed the beauty of thy fountains, nor thy clear pools. Behold the snow, and the cunning work of frost! Melkor hath devised heats and fire without restraint, and hath not dried up thy desire not utterly quelled the music of the sea. Behold rather the height and glory of the clouds, and the ever-changing mists; and listen to the fall of rain upon the Earth! And in these clouds thou art drawn nearer to Manwë, thy friend, whom thou lovest.'
The Ulmo answered: 'Truly. Water is become now fairer than my heart imagined, neither had my secret thought conceived the snowflake, nor in all my music was contained the falling of the rain. I will seek Manwë, that he and I may make melodies for ever to thy delight!' And Manwë and Ulmo have from the beginning been allied, and in all things have served most faithfully the purpose of Ilúvatar.

And from where Eru was thinking of Men in Arda

But Ilúvatar knew that Men, being set amid the turmoils of the powers of the world, would stray often, and would not use their gifts in harmony; and he said. 'These too in their time shall find that all that they do redounds at the end only to the glory of my work.' yet the Elves believe that Men are often a grief to Manwë, who knows most of the mind of Ilúvatar; for it seems to the Elves that Men resemble Melkor most of all the Ainur, although he has ever feared and hated them, even those that served him.

There is in all of this no thought of Evil, only that all contributes to the glory of the work. Even the discord of Melkor does so.

In Eru we have a being in whom Good and Evil do not exist for they are not separate ideas. All is Eru and All is One. The separation of these two concepts does not happen until the Ainur are able to make choices. But even so, it is not until some of the Ainur descend into Arda that we have "Good" and "Evil".

For "Good" we have the standard of Manwë "For Manwë was free from evil and could not comprehend it, and he knew that in the beginning, in the thought of Ilúvatar, Melkor had been even as he;" And Manwë followed faithfully the plan of Eru.

For "Evil" we have the standard of Melkor who did not oppose Eru's plan but only "sought therein to increase the power and glory of the part assigned to himself." At least until becoming so full of pride, that he was prepared to destroy Arda rather than submit to anyone. It was only at this point that the Valar were permitted to remove Melkor from Arda. From Eru's point of view this is most likely simply because Melkor had done his part in the fashioning of Arda and so it was the right time for him to be removed.

Good and Evil are confined to Arda because they are of importance only in the choices of the Children of Ilúvatar (both those of his choice, Elves and Men, and those of his adoption, Dwarves). These children would not have true choice unless there was indeed more than one path for them to follow. Had the "Discord of Melkor" not happened what good would 'Free Will' have done these peoples? None whatsoever, they would have only been able to follow the single path, either with joy or with doubt but with no other path to choose.

Ilúvatar knew that this choice was needed for the greater development of Arda and all that lived in it. So that Melkor, not by design but by his own intent due to that which Eru imbued him with, created this second path through Arda giving the peoples of Arda a true choice to exercise their 'Free Will'. Those that followed the "Path of Manwë" had the greater joy and brought forth more beauty of themselves while those that followed the "Path of Melkor" had greater hardships, far less joy and brought forth less beauty of themselves. Yet even so in the course of time even they "contributed to the glory of the work" and therefore were important to the whole scheme of creation.

by Mrs Maggott
No, I'm sorry. If you accept the stories, you accept the concept of good and evil and if you accept the concept of good and evil you must accept a standard, a "golden mean" if you will, against which good and evil are judged. And the only standard available that is not tainted by error or weakness or imperfection is, of course Eru. That's simply the "moral mathematics" of the matter.

Well then, let us look at how your "moral mathematics" work. First we need to know the definitions of a couple of terms.

Mean adj. (of a point or quantity) equally far from two extremes. average.

golden mean, neither too much not too little.

So Mean is the point half-way between total Good and total Evil and Golden Mean is neither Too Much nor Too Little of either.

Now while I agree that Eru is the "Golden Mean", I disagree with your setting this point at "Ultimate Goodness". By doing so you have the problem that it is completely one-sided. You have in this equation only Good or only Evil you cannot measure both. Every thing that does not equal this standard is either of decreasing degrees of Good or of increasing degrees of Evil.

I see the "Golden Mean" as the point were "Light" and "Shade" are in due amounts "neither Too Much, nor Too Little" of either. At this point both Good and Evil cease to exist, only one being can be seen to occupy this position, Eru.

Melkor and Manwë should have been working with each other to provide in Arda light and shade in due measure for the benefit of all Arda. Melkor however, wanted to have a bigger part in the creation of Arda. It would appear that he was the Extreme point of Shade, as such to counter the darkness he spread his opposite, Manwë the Extreme point of Light, was used to counter him. Thereby working to return the creation to the "Golden Mean" at a point somewhere near or even at the end of time in Arda.

by Barliman
and the wisdom writings of the I Ching (the Richard Wilhelm translation).

Have you read "The Complete I Ching" by Alfred Huang?

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

To return to the question of this thread for a moment. I have been giving this much thought and am now ready to post my view.

Eru is indeed the "Root of All Evil". Does this mean that I am attributing Evil to Him? What a ludicrous idea, just as ludicrous as attributing Good to him. Looking at the Ainulindalë I see no evidence that Evil existed before the Ainur descended into the newly created Arda!...

...There is in all of this no thought of Evil, only that all contributes to the glory of the work. Even the discord of Melkor does so.

In Eru we have a being in whom Good and Evil do not exist

I think the above quotes include the core of your thinking here: that "good and evil" do not exist as such in Iluvatar (or God), but are the names for actions engaged in by lower creatures. That's a fascinating thought. I assume you are a forward-thinking Christian and not one bound by the dictates of fundamentialism. I note Mrs. Maggott disagreed with you, asserting that (if I understood her correctly) that good and evil per se do exist.

I agree with your view: for me, good and evil are choices of action engaged in by humans. And they are also part of our inherent nature.

Much has been made of the disgusting behavior by the MP guards in the Iraqi prisons, and much hand-wringing has gone on about "No AMERICAN would do that! We're better than that!" Well, that would be nice if true, but almost any garden-variety human being will, under the proper circumstances administer pain and humiliation to another.

There was a famous experiment done in the US years ago which you might have heard of: people were led to believe they were administering electric shocks to test volunteers. The equipment was all phony, but the people who administered the shocks didn't know that, and the "volunteers" were actors. The test administrators encouraged the people to give more and more intense shocks (and the actors screamed louder and louder). Those giving the shocks were more and more discomfited as they went along, but the test administrators were very encouraging, patted them on the back, "Good job, keep going!" giving shocks that they eventually thought were lethal. You can imagine their relief and anger when they found out that the whole thing was a setup. The whole purpose was to see how far a person would go against his own ethics when encouraged to do so by an authority figure.

Now, above you said that it is ludricous to think of God being evil. In the Christian view, God is all-good, a concept that has troubled many.

Just for the sake of an interesting comparison, I offer part of an ancient Hindu prayer. But before I go further, let me say that Hinduism believes that WHATEVER is, is God. In other words, in Hinduism God did not create Something out of Nothing; God did not make a Creation separate from Himself. In Hinduism God BECAME all of Reality. Just as a goldsmith will take pure gold and make little tiny statues of horses, people, etc., and these forms are all gold (even though we forget that, considering only the outer form of the little gold item) — just so is all matter, energy and their various permutations (galaxies, planets, trees, bugs, lightning, people, air, the vacuum of space) congealed spirit. Everything is not just "made of" God, everything IS God in one purmutation or another.

The point is: that means that good and evil (as manifested as human choices) are also aspects of God. Now the more a rank-and-file Christian is soaked in mainline Christianity the more difficult it will be for the him (or her) to accept this idea. But that's fine, perfectly understandable, especially if he is so bound to Christian dogma as to believe that such notions are heresy or blasphemy.

Now for the prayer. I'm not going to give you the whole thing, because it's quite long. But I'm going to give you the part which acknowledges God's evil aspects from the standpoint of "whatever is, is God." (And this notion has a direct tie-in with the concepts of karma and reincarnation, which I won't go into here.)

The selection is from a very ancient Sanskrit prayer call the Rudram ("Rudra" is one of God's many Hindu names). It originally comes from the Krishna Yajur Veda, which forms the central part of the fourth section of the Sahmhita. It has been used in daily worship in religious homes from, as I say, ancient times. Here is the passage:

"Om. ...We pray: O Lord, do not injure people or destroy the world.
Please become peaceful and benevolent toward us. O Lord, who fulfills the desire of devotees, protect us from all worldly troubles...
Salutations to the Lord, who acts as the weapon that cuts the rope of transmigration, Lord of the Universe.
Salutations to the Lord, who is a deceiver as well as an arch-deceiver. Salutations to the Lord, who steals when He gets an opportunity and who steals in public places.
Salutations to the Lord who appears as those armed with weapons and who tortures others.
Salutations to the Lord, who is the Chief of Thieves who carry swords, who wander around at night and rob the wealth of others by injuring them.
SALUTATIONS TO YOU WHO EXIST IN THE FORM OF GOOD AND EVIL.
Salutations to You, who are in the world of the lord of death and in the celestial world.
Salutations to You who appear in the form of the killer and destroyer.
Salutations to You, who appear as trees whose green leaves are your hair.
Salutations to You, who are the Savior.
Salutations to You, who appear as auspiciousness and happiness.
Salutations to You, who are the dispenser of earthly welfare and divine bliss.
Salutations to You, who are in the form of rivers and ponds, torrents and waterfalls.
Salutations to You who appear as the waters of wells and pits.
Salutations to You who appear as rain as well as the sea...
Salutations to You who appear as the individual soul worthy of deliverance and as the individual soul reaping the consequences of its actions....
Let there be no fear in people. let none experience sorrow; let none be diseased. Let people be well-nourished and free from afflictions.
O Rudra, do not afflict our teachers or ouir children. Do not afflict our fathers or our mothers. Do not afflict our dear bodies. Let there be no pain or affliction for our children, for our sons and daughters in their lives.
Do not destroy our heros out of anger.
Let your terrible form remain far away form us. Let your auspicious form be with us..
Please grant us eternal happiness within this perishable body itself. Make our children and grandchildren happy. May you become the doer of good to us; may you have good thoughts towards us..."

And it goes on in this way, but this is enough to illustrate the idea of God (or Iluvatar) as being The One, The Only Unity, containing all within Itself, in which we are both ourselves and God (and God is Herself as well as Us), just as a mainspring is at once both itself and "clock."

It is indeed an interesting exercise to think of Everything as God, takes you off in very different directions than the ordinary western personal generally goes, and when you bring the concept of "karma vs. free will"...whew!

Have you read "The Complete I Ching" by Alfred Huang?

I've seen it and browsed through it at the bookstores, but continue to stick to the Wilhelm translation, which also carries a forward by Carl Jung.

Barley

 

[Gimmi]

Thank you — you have my gratitude and respect! I look forward to future discussions with you about various aspects of Middle-earth and other subjects — perhaps even religion, as long as it is settled at the outset that we each have the right to our own beliefs, to live by them, and to take the consequences thereof.

Thank you! Hopefully, our posts provide a model of discussion and show that folks with whom we disagree with are not (usually) idiots or monsters. If only the use of respectful dialog and dignified treatment of those we disagree with could be the norm…

Reading through this thread and similar others I see a great many people equating Eru/Illuvatar to the Judeo-Christian God or the fill in the blank god and Tolkien’s works to Christian or fill in the blank doctrine. I did as well, and I now believe that is a mistake. Tolkien’s works are parts of his wonderful Middle-earth myth and reflect his own philosophy and that is how they should be read and enjoyed. They may include many Christian principles (and/or the wisdom of many other religions as well) but not accurate doctrine. And Eru is Tolkien’s mythological being, different from the Judeo-Christian God as Middle-earth is from any Christian doctrine, though I’m sure in many ways meant to be analogous.

A good example can be found in ROTK’s The Grey Havens when Gandalf tells Aragorn on Mt. Mindolluin:

The Third Age of the world is ended, and the new age is begun; and it is your task to order its beginning and to preserve what may be preserved. For though much has been saved, much must now pass away; and the power of the Three Rings also is ended. And all the lands that you see, and those that you see round about them, shall be dwellings of Men. For the time comes of the Dominion of Men, and the Elder Kindred shall fade or depart… The Third Age was my age. I was the Enemy of Sauron; and my work is finished. I shall go soon. The burden must lie now upon you and your kindred."

Tolkien implies that man must master himself and dominate Middle-earth and that good leaves with evil, hardly Christian beliefs. (See also, Galadriel to Frodo, "For however the fortune of war shall go, may it not so end that much that was fair and wonderful shall pass for ever out of Middle-earth?")

That said, back to where this thread started: “What is the root of evil?” (Or “What is the origination of evil?” or “Who created evil?”) Here are my answers to these: Eru created (defined) evil; Melkor was the originator of evil; and the root of all evil in Middle-earth seems to be love of power.

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

I fear I have "dated" myself. The term "Golden Mean" did not stand for an average between two points, but the ultimate defining principal and/or person in a given situation. Hence, God is the "Golden Mean" when it came to goodness or power or anything else since nothing exceeds or can exceed Him. The phrase is idiomatic - which, as you know, means a language concept which is not defined by the words with which it is expressed.

The God of the Bible, Tolkien's God - and, I would therefore assume his model for Eru Iluvatar - is all good. To make Him otherwise is to negate the entire meaning of Tolkien's works as it removes the standard by which the author himself defines good and evil. You may do so, but when you do you have forever altered the author's intentions and reformed the stories in accordance with your own belief system which is what Peter Jackson did in the films and which is the reason that, frankly, I can't stand the things. But, to each his own - as the old saying goes.

 

[Gimmi]

Well then, let us look at how your "moral mathematics" work. First we need to know the definitions of a couple of terms.

Mean adj. (of a point or quantity) equally far from two extremes. average.

golden mean, neither too much not too little.

So Mean is the point half-way between total Good and total Evil and Golden Mean is neither Too Much nor Too Little of either.

Now while I agree that Eru is the "Golden Mean", I disagree with your setting this point at "Ultimate Goodness". By doing so you have the problem that it is completely one-sided. You have in this equation only Good or only Evil you cannot measure both. Every thing that does not equal this standard is either of decreasing degrees of Good or of increasing degrees of Evil.

I see the "Golden Mean" as the point were "Light" and "Shade" are in due amounts "neither Too Much, nor Too Little" of either. At this point both Good and Evil cease to exist, only one being can be seen to occupy this position, Eru.

I think what was meant was "golden unit", not "golden mean". We use this term in manufacturing for the manufactured item we know to be free from defects, the "standard". This unit is used to verify our measuring devices.

Eru was not half-way between total Good and total Evil. He represented, as authored by Tolkien, good.

 

[Gimmi]

The God of the Bible, Tolkien's God - and, I would therefore assume his model for Eru Iluvatar - is all good.

Hi MM!

In some regards, God might be Tolkien's model for Eru, but I'm starting to wonder. Eru never walks the earth in the form of a man and doesn't sacrifice himself to save man. It's argued that Gandalf is modeled from Christ, but Gandalf is not Eru. He is one of the Maiar and leaves at the end offering no assistance to man (spiritual or otherwise). Frodo saves mankind. Melkor is cast out long before the third age, unlike Satan. There is no worship or prayer to Eru other than a reference to facing the West at mealtimes (more Islamic than Christian). I agree, Eru is written as all good.

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

Hi MM!

In some regards, God might be Tolkien's model for Eru, but I'm starting to wonder. Eru never walks the earth in the form of a man and doesn't sacrifice himself to save man. It's argued that Gandalf is modeled from Christ, but Gandalf is not Eru. He is one of the Maiar and leaves at the end offering no assistance to man (spiritual or otherwise). Frodo saves mankind. Melkor is cast out long before the third age, unlike Satan. There is no worship or prayer to Eru other than a reference to facing the West at mealtimes (more Islamic than Christian). I agree, Eru is written as all good.

First, probably the term "Golden Unit" would be more accurate, but "Golden Mean" was the idiom used at the time (long, looonnng ago, folks!).

Tolkien mentioned in one of his letters that the stories take place ages before the Incarnation. That is why there is no "Christ figure" in the stories; it is something that is to come far in the future.

 

[Gothmog]

I think the above quotes include the core of your thinking here: that "good and evil" do not exist as such in Iluvatar (or God), but are the names for actions engaged in by lower creatures. That's a fascinating thought. I assume you are a forward-thinking Christian and not one bound by the dictates of fundamentialism. I note Mrs. Maggott disagreed with you, asserting that (if I understood her correctly) that good and evil per se do exist.

Yes those quotes do indeed include the core of my thinking. The rest were just helping to explain. As it happens I am not a forward-thinking Christian but a free-thinking person looking around. I do not follow any religion as I believe that no one religion holds the "Answer".

Mrs Maggott posted in disagreement with Ancalagon, my answer to her was me disagreeing with her .

There was a famous experiment done in the US years ago which you might have heard of: people were led to believe they were administering electric shocks to test volunteers. The equipment was all phony, but the people who administered the shocks didn't know that, and the "volunteers" were actors.

I had not heard of this experiment though the results do not surprise me in the least. Many will accept the word of one in authority and give it precedence over their own views. It is for this reason that I believe that ALL authority should be questioned at all times.

Now, above you said that it is ludricous to think of God being evil. In the Christian view, God is all-good, a concept that has troubled many.

Yes and I also said that it is ludicrous to think of God being good. This is because such a being would be outside of any definition that we could give to such terms.

As for the prayer, it is a very interesting comparison. In Eru we have a God who is separate from his creation and the aspects that in Arda become Good and Evil are indeed part of Eru. The difference in this case is that each aspect was given a separate personification. Manwë for Good and Melkor for Evil. Eru remained "Neutral" and thereby also confining Good and Evil to Arda. In Christianity on the other hand, only Evil is given a separate personification in the form of Lucifer while God is seen as personifying Good.

It is this apparent neutrality of Eru compared to the Christian God that I find very interesting given Tolkien's devout Catholicism. Perhaps it shows just how comfortable he was with his religion.

By Mrs Maggott
I fear I have "dated" myself. The term "Golden Mean" did not stand for an average between two points, but the ultimate defining principal and/or person in a given situation. Hence, God is the "Golden Mean" when it came to goodness or power or anything else since nothing exceeds or can exceed Him. The phrase is idiomatic - which, as you know, means a language concept which is not defined by the words with which it is expressed.

I never said that "Golden Mean" stood for the average between two points. The word defined as that is "Mean". Golden Mean is defined as "Neither Too Much Nor Too Little". In other words "Perfect Balance". However, as you state that you were using this term idiomatically then it is of no use in the discussion as your meaning for it is totally different from mine and of others that I have heard using it.

But on a side note it seems that Aristotle, Plato’s student, defined his concept of the Golden Mean as a point that would lie somewhere between two extremes—one excessive, the other deficient. So I wonder how you have "Dated" yourself?

by Mrs Maggott
The God of the Bible, Tolkien's God - and, I would therefore assume his model for Eru Iluvatar - is all good. To make Him otherwise is to negate the entire meaning of Tolkien's works as it removes the standard by which the author himself defines good and evil. You may do so, but when you do you have forever altered the author's intentions and reformed the stories in accordance with your own belief system which is what Peter Jackson did in the films and which is the reason that, frankly, I can't stand the things. But, to each his own - as the old saying goes.

I accept that the Christian God is seen as "All Good" and I have no doubt that Tolkien agreed with this view of his God. However, as to Eru and the author's intentions let us have a look at what J.R.R. Tolkien himself had to say about this.

From Tolkien Letters. No. 131.

But an equally basic passion of mine ab initio was for myth (not allegory!) and for fairy-story, and above all for heroic legend on the brink of fairy-tale and history, of which there is far too little in the world (accessible to me) for my appetite. I was an undergraduate before thought and experience revealed to me that these were not divergent interests – opposite poles of science and romance – but integrally related. I am not 'learned' in the matters of myth and fairy-story, however, for in such things (as far as known to me) I have always been seeking material, things of a certain tone and air, and not simple knowledge. Also – and here I hope I shall not sound absurd – I was from early days grieved by the poverty of my own beloved country: it had no stories of its own (bound up with its tongue and soil), not of the quality that I sought, and found (as an ingredient) in legends of other lands. There was Greek, and Celtic, and Romance, Germanic, Scandinavian, and Finnish (which greatly affected me); but nothing English, save impoverished chap-book stuff. Of course there was and is all the Arthurian world, but powerful as it is, it is imperfectly naturalized, associated with the soil of Britain but not with English; and does not replace what I felt to be missing. For one thing its 'faerie' is too lavish, and fantastical, incoherent and repetitive. For another and more important thing: it is involved in, and explicitly contains the Christian religion.
For reasons which I will not elaborate, that seems to me fatal. 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. (I am speaking, of course, of our present situation, not of ancient pagan, pre-Christian days. And I will not repeat what I tried to say in my essay, which you read.)

The cycles begin with a cosmogonical myth: the Music of the Ainur. God and the Valar (or powers: Englished as gods) are revealed. These latter are as we should say angelic powers, whose function is to exercise delegated authority in their spheres (of rule and government, not creation, making or re-making). They are 'divine', that is, were originally 'outside' and existed 'before' the making of the world. Their power and wisdom is derived from their Knowledge of the cosmogonical drama, which they perceived first as a drama (that is as in a fashion we perceive a story composed by some-one else), and later as a 'reality'. On the side of mere narrative device, this is, of course, meant to provide beings of the same order of beauty, power, and majesty as the 'gods' of higher mythology, which can yet be accepted – well, shall we say baldly, by a mind that believes in the Blessed Trinity.

Tolkien disliked the fact that the "Arthurian legend" Explicitly contained the Christian Religion. He felt that the moral and religious principles should not be explicit and should not be in the known form found in the "Real" world. Also when he was writing the Ainulindalë he wanted a Myth not an Allegory. Therefore Eru is not the Christian God. However, this does not "negate the entire meaning of Tolkien's works as it removes the standard by which the author himself defines good and evil". Tolkien put in as standards for these Manwë who followed the plan of Eru personifying Good and Melkor who attempted to alter Eru's plan personifying Evil. The standards are there but in a form somewhat different from that of Christianity in the real world.

 

[Gimmi]

First, probably the term "Golden Unit" would be more accurate, but "Golden Mean" was the idiom used at the time (long, looonnng ago, folks!).

The Golden Mean is also called phi or the Golden Ratio or the divine proportion for centuries. It equals 1.618.... It stems from the Fibonacci series (the ratio that is approached of two consecutive points in the series): 1 2 3 5 8 13 21... I use it in a hobby of mine.

It was considered the perfect number, most aesthetically pleasing, most encountered ratio in nature. You may be right since it deals with perfection although I haven't heard it used the way you do.

Mathematically, a mean is an average. I would imagine that the average of the ratios of consecutive numbers also approaches phi, thus Golden Mean.

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

Yes those quotes do indeed include the core of my thinking. The rest were just helping to explain. As it happens I am not a forward-thinking Christian but a free-thinking person looking around. I do not follow any religion as I believe that no one religion holds the "Answer".

Ha! For the first time since I've been on this board I have found someone who shares that view with me! I look very much forward to more of your posts!

I had not heard of this experiment though the results do not surprise me in the least. Many will accept the word of one in authority and give it precedence over their own views. It is for this reason that I believe that ALL authority should be questioned at all times.

We agree again (except in situations of war or other very critical situations, where commands usually need to be obeyed without question, since the pawns have no idea of what the rooks and other higher-ups know of the bigger picture)!

I also said that it is ludicrous to think of God being good. This is because such a being would be outside of any definition that we could give to such terms.

"Good" seems to mean — in common parlance — something pleasant or at least an absence of pain. And of course those things are necessary at times for things to be "good" once again.

As for the prayer, it is a very interesting comparison. In Eru we have a God who is separate from his creation...

And it is this notion that hardly anyone ever thinks of.

It is this apparent neutrality of Eru compared to the Christian God that I find very interesting given Tolkien's devout Catholicism. Perhaps it shows just how comfortable he was with his religion.

Or perhaps he had private views of his own that others might consider heretical, that he let "leak" out into the story...

I never said that "Golden Mean" stood for the average between two points.

Someone else addressed this, but it seems to mean a pleasing proportion as evidenced in a certain shape of rectangle based on the Fibonacci sequence so ubiquitous in the universe (many argue that this sequence is proof of God's existence — I think it is proof of something about the inner consistency of matter and energy).

Barley

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

Musings

As I read this particular thread it strikes me once again that TTF has a crowd of unusually intelligent people who have very fine intellects and very well-ordered thinking processes. And yet...we can all go wrong if we have our facts wrong, or if our beliefs and conclusions are wrong — mine included, of course!

I am reminded of two instances of genius led astray by a lack of facts.

The first instance is Leonardo da Vinci's absolutely brilliant explanation of how the eye sees. I used to have a very large book — God know where it's gotten to — of his writings in Italian and in English translation, together with splendid reproductions of his drawings. And in this book there is a long, carefully put-together essay on the mechanism of the eye — splendid brilliant logic, gorgeous theory — and all wrong because of lack of true knowledge about the eye that was only to come centuries later.

The second instance is of the same nature: the brilliant psychologist and philospher William James, in his groundbreaking work "The Principles of Psychology" composes an equally stellar essay on how the brain thinks and how the mind works. It is compelling! You want to believe it! And it's wrong! It's wrong because the right facts had yet to be discovered. So the most brilliant genius, let alone you or me, can go astray when making conclusions based upon insufficient facts. (By the way, "Principles of Psychology" is still widely read because so much of it is still right on the money — but the interesting thing is that it was written as a high school text — something that should fill us all with chagrin considering that it's now used as a university text in History of Psych classes. As Tom Brokaw once said, "Our society is functioning at the level of junior high school.")

Perhaps this is obvious, because it is rare when all the needed facts are at hand, most conclusions are based on insufficient knowledge.

I believe this applies to religion as well. For me, the absolutely convincing conclusions come to by mystics; the writings in holy books that claim to be divine transmission of cosmic truth; the gorgeous architectures of the various systems of psychology and philosophy — are like nets full of the holes of incomplete facts and unwarranted conclusions. We are always becoming, never arriving.

Barley

 

[Gothmog]

We agree again (except in situations of war or other very critical situations, where commands usually need to be obeyed without question, since the pawns have no idea of what the rooks and other higher-ups know of the bigger picture)!

Yet it was Blind Unquestioning Obedience to orders in war-time that allowed the Holocaust during WWII. Even in such times questions should be asked.

"Good" seems to mean — in common parlance — something pleasant or at least an absence of pain. And of course those things are necessary at times for things to be "good" once again.

True, But "common parlance" would give a far too confining definition for such a being.

Or perhaps he had private views of his own that others might consider heretical, that he let "leak" out into the story...

This too is possible

I believe this applies to religion as well. For me, the absolutely convincing conclusions come to by mystics; the writings in holy books that claim to be divine transmission of cosmic truth; the gorgeous architectures of the various systems of psychology and philosophy — are like nets full of the holes of incomplete facts and unwarranted conclusions. We are always becoming, never arriving.

To me the writings in holy books are only "fingers pointing at the moon". The only place that you can find any part of such "cosmic truth" is within your own self. The books may point you in the direction of where inside yourself to look.

It is good that we never arrive. The end of the journy is a poor place to be.

 

[Walter]

To me the writings in holy books are only "fingers pointing at the moon". The only place that you can find any part of such "cosmic truth" is within your own self. The books may point you in the direction of where inside yourself to look.

And yet most "followers" of those writings seem too busy arguing about the fingers and about which one is the right finger as to behold with awe the same moon they all are pointing at....

 

[Helcaraxë]

Its important to note that Eru is not the source of evil. He created the possibility of evil, but evil was of Melkor's devising, mostly because of the jealous and nefarious aspects of his nature, which, though not themselves inherently evil, inevitably led to it.

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

Its important to note that Eru is not the source of evil. He created the possibility of evil, but evil was of Melkor's devising, mostly because of the jealous and nefarious aspects of his nature, which, though not themselves inherently evil, inevitably led to it.

Evil is directly attributable to Eru, because he created Melkor as he was. Had he created Melkor without the potential for evil (which he immediately manifested, therefore it can be argued that Melkor was inherently evil), Melkor would not have been evil. And it cannot be argued that Eru screwed up, or then God would be imperfect. So Eru ipso facto was the creator of intentional evil as well as intentional good.

And if you argue that Eru regretted what he had done (as God so often regrets what He has done in the Old Testament) then you must say that he isn't perfect, which flies in the face of the traditional Christian idea of God. That's why Tolkien had Eru go on to say that even Melkor's evil is a part of Eru's Grand Plan and intentions, foreseen from the beginning (Eru being omniscient).

Barley