Let's Talk Morgoth [Archive] - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

alatar

03-09-2005, 10:11 PM

To me, this raises an even bigger question, about the nature of evil in JRRTs writing. Would Sauron have ever been evil without Melkor?

Hard to say. I think that Sauron as a Maia needed a Valar to show the way, yet may have been 'born' with the wiring that allowed him to be easily led astray.

Evil seems such an alien concept to the other Vala that they let Morgoth go after his imprisonment. It seems that can't concieve of why someone would want to commit acts of evil. This leads to the question, why was Melkor evil? Was this part of Iluvatar's plan?

Someone has to pull the trigger. And of course Melkor was part of the plan from the get-go. Assume Iluvatar is an omniscient, omnipresent god. How could anything be unknown to him? Also, as with Aule, Iluvatar did not want robots. And my favorite part of the Valaquenta is where it is stated that Iluvatar makes 'good'' from Melkor's perversions - like snow crystals, etc. Think about how boring Valinor would be without Melkor.

If so, why did Eru begin with plans for Melkor and Manwe to be brothers in his mind and why do the other themes seem to have been in response to Melkor's theme?

If you really want some trouble, go with siblings. For example, my brother and I have gotten into fights over the silliest of things. He knows exactly how to push my buttons, and though there've been times that I've raised my fists to him, I remember that I love him, that's he's my brother, and so he skates (then, as my guard is down, he whips my butt).

Think that like the Greek/Roman gods/goddesses, you have more competition from those at your level, neither parents nor children but siblings.

King of the North

03-09-2005, 11:13 PM

Tolkien is very good at encrypting symbolism and meaning in his writing so that the reader has to think. Therefore Melkor (Morgoth) could stand for many things. Being a Roman Catholic I relate Belegurth to Lucifer. Both stories are kind of a fall from grace, Lucifer was once an angel, and Melkor an Ainu (in fact the most powerful, wisest, and cunning). Another similarity is the way in which they were cast away from the good angels/Ainu. Even though the Dark Lord had already seperated from the rest of Great Ones, it was really made official in the Battle of the Powers when Tulkas defeated him. In the battle between Michael (and his angels) and the Dragron (Lucifer), the end result was Satan and all his angels being cast out of heaven like "lightning from heaven" Luke 10:18 NIV. Both battles were battles between Gods, divine beings. There is another explanation for what Melkor stands for though. After experiencing one of the deadliest battles in the whole of WWI (the Somme), Tolkien and others like him needed a new explanation of evil. In his hospital bed, recovering from the Somme, he began writing The Silmarillion and began with the destruction of the beautiful Elven city of Gondolin. Morgoth became the main bad guy, and I think he created a great representation of evil.

obloquy

03-11-2005, 05:52 PM

Classifying Melkor as "evil" is questionable. He sought to further his own purposes, and since those were in disharmony with the other themes in the Music they were resisted and this caused strife. What's interesting is that, while the Valar did not know what physical manifestation their music would have, Iluvatar did and still he did not condemn Melkor. Instead he declared that ultimately his will would be accomplished, with Melkor as his instrument.

At this point it had all been laid out for Iluvatar to see. This suggests to me that Melkor had not done anything "evil"--at least in the absolute sense--in the eyes of his father. The corruption of Arda becomes minor on this universal scale, and the "big picture" had not been altered from Iluvatar's original purpose. Melkor, at the time when he had already wrought all his corruption, was above (or outside the jurisdiction of) the concepts of "morality" or "good and bad" that we and the Children of Iluvatar are familiar with and use as guides to make our decisions. Melkor merely resisted the vision of his Creator, which he was created with the will to do and this action was apparently still within his rights. Iluvatar did chastise him, but then made it clear that the beauty of his vision had not been compromised:
In the midst of this strife, whereat the halls of Ilúvatar shook and a tremor ran out into the silences yet unmoved, Ilúvatar arose a third time, and his face was terrible to behold. Then he raised up both his hands, and in one chord, deeper than the Abyss, higher than the Firmament, piercing as the light of the eye of Ilúvatar, the Music ceased.

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.'

I use the word "questionable" above because I'm not sure how much of this I can buy, myself. There has to be a line drawn. Since Melkor existed both prior to and without Arda, and then subsequently within Arda as well, we have to ask, At what point did his actions become wrong or "evil?" For example, we're sure it was wrong for him to torture Hurin cruelly for years, but at the same time the War of Wrath was woven into the fabric that Iluvatar had seemingly approved of.

Kuruharan

03-11-2005, 06:55 PM

For example, we're sure it was wrong for him to torture Hurin cruelly for years, but at the same time the War of Wrath was woven into the fabric that Iluvatar had seemingly approved of.

Maybe Iluvatar approved of the fabric but did not necessarily like all that was in it. Besides, Iluvatar did not have on his happy face by the end of Melkor's little disruption.

obloquy

03-11-2005, 07:06 PM

Maybe Iluvatar approved of the fabric but did not necessarily like all that was in it. Besides, Iluvatar did not have on his happy face by the end of Melkor's little disruption.

Iluvatar takes ownership for all that Melkor contributed, though. The Music did not deviate from his purpose, so did Iluvatar's purpose include "evil"?

No, Melkor wasn't happy about being cut down to size, but he also wasn't damned in any way as he would have been if he had managed to sabotage Iluvatar's purpose.

Makar

03-11-2005, 08:18 PM

All of this just complicates the question, I believe. I'm sure the word "evil" is used in Tolkien, but does it just mean "a bad thing" or "a fell deed" and not an action in opposition to an ideal (which is Good)? If everything that happens is part of Iluvatar's plan, then is there no "evil"? Are we to assume that Eru is neither good or evil, but simply is? And therefore, everything that results from his plan/song also just is ? In this case things such as the kinslaying and the burning of the ships would not be considered "evil". However, if this is the case, would Men be able to commit "evil", since their actions reamained unseen or they opperated outside of the bounds of fate (I think that's how it works, correct me if I'm wrong)? Was Sauron "evil"?

Kuruharan

03-11-2005, 09:34 PM

but he also wasn't damned in any way as he would have been if he had managed to sabotage Iluvatar's purpose.

I think sabotaging Iluvatar's purpose was beyond Melkor's capacity.

Also:

But Manwe was the brother of Melkor in the mind of Iluvatar, and was the chief instrument of the second theme that Iluvatar had raised up against the discord of Melkor

Iluvatar evidently felt the discord was something to oppose.

I personally don't understand how Iluvatar's actions could be interpreted as favorable toward Melkor's activities. Note that Melkor was filled with shame as if he had been rebuked (which I think he had been).

obloquy

03-12-2005, 02:09 AM

I think sabotaging Iluvatar's purpose was beyond Melkor's capacity.

Obviously. That's the point. All of Melkor's discord did not corrupt Iluvatar's plan, so how can we call it evil without maligning Iluvatar himself? He didn't fix the Music or remove Melkor's contribution.

Iluvatar evidently felt the discord was something to oppose.

He didn't oppose it, he contained it. He humbled Melkor and silenced him when he saw fit, but he did not oppose the theme Melkor had sung. Had he opposed it, he would not have claimed to be its "uttermost source."

I personally don't understand how Iluvatar's actions could be interpreted as favorable toward Melkor's activities. Note that Melkor was filled with shame as if he had been rebuked (which I think he had been).

I'm not saying that Iluvatar favored Melkor's discord, but I am saying that it was permitted and within Melkor's rights.

Kuruharan

03-12-2005, 07:54 AM

That's the point. All of Melkor's discord did not corrupt Iluvatar's plan, so how can we call it evil without maligning Iluvatar himself? He didn't fix the Music or remove Melkor's contribution.

-and-

I'm not saying that Iluvatar favored Melkor's discord, but I am saying that it was permitted and within Melkor's rights.

Yes, that's what I've been saying. However, if it is part of some rights given to Melkor, then Iluvatar is not at fault for them.

Maédhros

03-12-2005, 09:21 AM

From the Quenta Silmarillion
§31 Thus spake Mandos in prophecy, when the Gods sat in judgement in Valinor, and the rumour of his words was whispered among all the Elves of the West. When the world is old and the Powers grow weary, then Morgoth, seeing that the guard sleepeth, shall come back through the Door of Night out of the Timeless Void; and he shall destroy the Sun and Moon. But Eärendel shall descend upon him as a white and searing flame and drive him from the airs. Then shall the Last Battle be gathered on the fields of Valinor. In that day Tulkas shall strive with Morgoth, and on his right hand shall be Fionwë, and on his left Turin Turambar, son of Húrin, coming from the halls of Mandos; and the black sword of Túrin shall deal unto Morgoth his death and final end; and so shall the children of Húrin and all Men be avenged.
§32 Thereafter shall Earth be broken and re-made, and the Silmarils shall be recovered out of Air and Earth and Sea; for Eärendel shall descend and surrender that flame which he hath had in keeping. Then Fëanor shall take the Three Jewels and bear them to Yavanna Palúrien; and she will break them and with their fire rekindle the Two Trees, and a great light shall come forth. And the Mountains of Valinor shall be levelled, so that the Light shall go out over all the world. In that light the Gods will grow young again, and the Elves awake and all their dead arise, and the purpose of Ilúvatar be fulfilled concerning them. But of Men in that day the prophecy of Mandos doth not speak, and no Man it names, save Túrin only, and to him a place is given among the sons of the Valar.

One of the things that I find most interesting about this discussion is what happens to Melkor. It seems to me that he was playing his rôle in this affair of making Arda what it was supposed to be.
Not only did Melkor enrich Arda in the material sense, Arda remade being better than Arda Unmarred, but he ultimately enriched the story of the world. Can you imagine the history of Arda without his plans and machinations?
I wonder about the fate of Melkor. In this prophecy it is stated that he meets his end, but I wonder if that means if Melkor is destroyed and ceases to exist or is just that Melkor as Morgoth is defeated and he could be reborn or remade as Arda has?
Could there not be a place for a reformed Melkor in Arda or outside of it with Ilúvatar?

Kuruharan

03-12-2005, 05:53 PM

Melkor is destroyed and ceases to exist or is just that Melkor as Morgoth is defeated and he could be reborn or remade as Arda has?
Could there not be a place for a reformed Melkor in Arda or outside of it with Ilúvatar?

Unanswerable question. Insufficient data.

obloquy

03-12-2005, 06:35 PM

Yes, that's what I've been saying. However, if it is part of some rights given to Melkor, then Iluvatar is not at fault for them.

You're right, I'm not saying Iluvatar's at fault. I'm saying Iluvatar apparently doesn't think it's a fault at all. Melkor's discord was woven into the Music and overpowered all other themes, but Iluvatar still claimed that the Music fulfilled his will. Therefore, how can we say that Melkor's discord was evil? If Iluvatar created everything, he was responsible for everything's opposite. On this tier of immaterial existence, there is no real way to qualify "evil" or "good," unless we define evil as the resistance to God's will. In our world, yes, that works, depending on what you believe. But in Ea it's different because Iluvatar claimed to be the uttermost source of Melkor's work, and that work, dissentious as it was, would bear out His own purpose and glory nonetheless.

Eruanna

03-12-2005, 06:50 PM

why was Melkor evil? Was this part of Iluvatar's plan?

If we see Melkor and the other Valar as aspects of Iluvatar, then it makes sense that there has to be evil in order to create balance with good, perhaps Melkor was simply fulfilling his purpose.

Arda remade being better than Arda Unmarred, but he ultimately enriched the story of the world. Can you imagine the history of Arda without his plans and machinations?

This is an interesting point, Maédhros. Sometimes good comes out of evil. Certain things, like wars for instance, are thought of as bad things, but throughout history we can see that times of war have also been times of invention and innovation in both technology and medicine.

alatar

03-12-2005, 08:46 PM

What I've never understood is how an omniscient omnipresent infinite God could be considered 'good.' Doesn't that seem to place a limit on or anthropomorphize something beyond our understanding?

Melkor was obviously evil once he came to Arda, but beforehand I would have to agree with others that technically he wasn't, though he was in discord with Iluvatar. Was this pre-Arda discord because of pride, which is considered to be evil (discord - pride - evil)? Was he 'evil' because he failed to harmonize with the others, and maybe even worse, because he also silenced others, limiting their freedom?

And it should be plain to see that if Iluvatar wanted to remove Melkor from the theme that he could have easily done so at any time; therefore I would say that Melkor was a necessary part of the plan.

Wonder how Tolkien found this as he was a Roman Catholic? Satan, whom many consider to be like Melkor, is never thought to be 'part of the original plan.'

Maédhros

03-12-2005, 08:48 PM

From the Published Silmarillion
But as the theme progressed, it came into the heart of Melkor to interweave matters of his own imagining that were not in accord with the theme of Ilúvatar, for he sought therein to increase the power and glory of the part assigned to himself. To Melkor among the Ainur had been given the greatest gifts of power and knowledge, and he had a share in all the gifts of his brethren. He had gone often alone into the void places seeking the Imperishable Flame; for desire grew hot within him to bring into Being things of his own, and it seemed to him that Ilúvatar took no thought for the Void, and he was impatient of its emptiness. Yet he found not the Fire, for it is with Ilúvatar. But being alone he had begun to conceive thoughts of his own unlike those of his brethren.
This has always interested me. Why would only Melkor feel this way among the Ainur? Why does he has that innate curiosity that the others lack?
From Morgoth's Ring: Myths Transformed
Melkor must be made far more powerful in original nature (cf. 'Finrod and Andreth'). The greatest power under Eru (sc. the greatest created power). (He was to make/ devise / begin; Manwë (a little less great) was to improve, carry out, complete.)
Melkor 'incarnated' himself (as Morgoth) permanently. He did this so as to control the hroa, the 'flesh' or physical matter of Arda. He attempted to identify himself with it. A vaster and more perilous, procedure, though of similar sort to the operations of Sauron with the Rings. Thus, outside the Blessed Realm, all 'matter' was likely to have a 'Melkor ingredient', and those who had bodies, nourished by the hroa of Arda, had as it were a tendency, small or great, towards Melkor: they were none of them wholly free of him in their incarnate form, and their bodies had an effect upon their spirits.
I had always thought that Melkor strayed from his path. To me at first, he was the one to have become like the great architect of the making of Arda, while the other Valars put their touches here and there. But now I think that perhaps I was mistaken.
Perhaps a world like that was to be flawed, perhaps it was that the reason that Melkor had such other ideas unlike his brethren.
What if Melkor's devise to make begin, was not meant for Arda but for Arda Remade? Consider, Melkor "incarnated" his power to the flesh of Arda, leaving no choice but to make it anew. With all of his interference he enriched the overall history of the world and that of Men, so that they should be an integral part of the remaking of Arda. By having struggles in Arda, wouldn't that make in the end the joy of victory that much sweeter?
If the only part of Arda was Valinórë, which had no Melkor ingredient on it, and yet Men could not live there and it was a constant source of grief in Men, would that not be wrong. Perhaps that is what Melkor saw and that is what led him to his ways. Perhaps Arda Remade was the way that all of the beings could live in perfect harmony together and Melkor was the one who began it all.

Celebaglar

03-13-2005, 04:31 PM

As one of the Ainur, Melkor could create new life (correct me if I am wrong). In his jealousy when he looked down on Arda, he created (unwillingly?) a putrid creature named ungoliant. How did the rest of the Ainur not know of its creation or see it? What would they do to it or Melkor if they did?

Formendacil

03-14-2005, 01:31 PM

Wonder how Tolkien found this as he was a Roman Catholic? Satan, whom many consider to be like Melkor, is never thought to be 'part of the original plan.'

Personally, as a practising Roman Catholic myself, I never once saw Melkor's meddling as a part of the original plan. Melkor's self-seeking musical changes were exactly the same, in my mind, as Lucifer's pride. The thing though, is that Eru/God allows his sentient creatures freedom. Thus, although it was not Iluvatar's intent, when Melkor disrupted the Music intended to be the act of creation, Iluvatar did not obliterate it and start over again, but rather, he took up the changes and used them to make Arda a more beautiful, ultimately better place. Our free will, like Melkor's, can disrupt the divine intentions, and make life worse for our peers, but in the end, God's will can bend all things towards Him and his ultimate goal.

We may steer the car into the ditch, but God will keep us going towards out destination, even if it be over field and fen.

obloquy

03-14-2005, 02:22 PM

We may steer the car into the ditch, but God will keep us going towards out destination, even if it be over field and fen.

Without condemning us as "evil," aye?

Formendacil

03-14-2005, 03:00 PM

Without condemning us as "evil," aye?

Well, like the owner of the car, he might be pleased that it makes it to the end destination, but I rather suspect that those responsible for steering into the ditch will receive their just reward for mucking it up and ruining the transmission...

HerenIstarion

03-14-2005, 03:09 PM

...will receive their just reward for mucking it up....

Deliberate steering into the ditch, I hope and suppose.

obloquy

03-14-2005, 03:13 PM

What I've never understood is how an omniscient omnipresent infinite God could be considered 'good.' Doesn't that seem to place a limit on or anthropomorphize something beyond our understanding?
...

Good post, and it echoes my feelings on the definitions of good and evil. God isn't just "good" because he never makes an error that leads to bad, he is the ultimate good because that's what he chooses to define himself as. He is the arbiter on a tier above the two sides. Since Melkor and the rest of the Valar were installed as creators and gods of Arda, they had a similar right to do what pleased them without moral constraint. As far as I can remember Iluvatar does not provide a moral structure to guide their actions, apart from his direct communication with Manwe. Morality is designed to guide physical beings. Similar to the Biblical account of the origin of the demons, once Melkor incarnates himself and begins to break the moral laws of the Incarnates, he is no longer above those laws and is then subject to condemnation.

Edited multiple times to correct egregiously bizarre grammar.

alatar

03-14-2005, 03:37 PM

I never once saw Melkor's meddling as a part of the original plan. Melkor's self-seeking musical changes were exactly the same, in my mind, as Lucifer's pride.

If Melkor was not part of the original plan, then Iluvatar is not omniscient and therefore may not be 'God,' or at least an all-knowing all-powerful one. Is there then one greater than he? Does Iluvatar limit himself, whether consciously or subconsciously, in regards to not 'unmaking' Melkor? And just how does one limit the infinite?

I think that Iluvatar bet ("played dice" :) ) that by giving Melkor all of the abilities of the other Valar that he would be prideful, rebel, create new music and in the end fulfill Iluvatar's intentions of creating things more wonderful than Iluvatar could have achieved sans Melkor.

Anyway, where I see Melkor and Satan differing is in that Iluvatar uses Melkor's discordance to create things even greater whereas is seems to me that the Christian God is at odds with Satan and never would overtly 'use' something from the same. I know that all things still reflect the glory of God, but in Tolkien's world it is stated directly. Another thought: whereas Manwe is the King of Arda and Melkor is the Anti-King (so to speak), Lucifer is the purported king of this world and God is the King of everything not of this world.

The thing though, is that Eru/God allows his sentient creatures freedom. Thus, although it was not Iluvatar's intent, when Melkor disrupted the Music intended to be the act of creation, Iluvatar did not obliterate it and start over again, but rather, he took up the changes and used them to make Arda a more beautiful, ultimately better place.

So again he must not have minded the disruption. Not to debate the other book, but the Christian God drowned a world full of people expressing their free will. Iluvatar let each censor its own type (Vala, Maia, Eldar with occasional overlap).

Our free will, like Melkor's, can disrupt the divine intentions, and make life worse for our peers, but in the end, God's will can bend all things towards Him and his ultimate goal.

Though I understand what you are trying to say, note that you cannot "disrupt the divine intentions" of a God by definition. Even Satan/Melkor, being a creation of the god of the particular world, could not influence the same without the permission from said god. And in regards to "God's will can bend all things towards Him and his ultimate goal,' where does free will end and God's will start? I kinda like that idea that the rules of the game have been set up and now we're on our own.

obloquy

03-14-2005, 03:40 PM

Hi, alatar, I'm obloquy. I'm pleased to meet you and I hope you post frequently.

Great post.

HerenIstarion

03-14-2005, 04:14 PM

Alatar, well argued. Despite my total disagreement, can't help but approve of form, if not of content.

It may be advisable to look at the following:

Of evil, free will and fate (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?t=1525) (by legolas)
The role of fate in Middle Earth (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?t=1172) (by Mithadan)
The halls of Mandos and elvish free will (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?t=120) (by JenFramp). (see post #18 of that thread. It was not written as direct answer to questions you rise, rather elvish fate was in mind, but I think it may work in this case too)

About ‘incorporating’ of Melkor/Satan’s undoing into further creation – one thing to remember is a Christian concept that God has no need to create.

Crude analogy:

Suppose I have a cow, and a garden. Suppose further the cow defecated on a path in my garden. It is not a proper place for a cow to do the deed, and evaluation I may give the event would be ‘bad’. My further course of action may be manifold:

1. I may use the manure to dung the flowerbed and grow flowers
2. I may simply throw it away

It does not follow, though:

1. That I was obliged to use that particular ‘bad’ piece of manure for fertilization
2. That I was unable to grow flowers by other means if I threw it away, after all

That I take it up and use it for better purposes, thus ‘cleansing’ the paths in my garden back to original and producing more beauty through doings of my cow, is my glory

EDIT: point about freedom - when I gave my cow the freedom to walk my garden, I certainly counted for possibility it may do the thing in inappropriate place. That I hoped it would be a good cow, and not use the freedom I gave her to defecate there is, I believe, obvious. That I valued her freedom more than my possible displeasure with necessity of spade-work, is, I hope, likewise obvious. That I would have loved her more (and my end in letting her into the garden in the first place) if she used her free will to refrain from the deed, is what follows (see also Was Eru a sadist (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?t=10705) by bombadil, post #14) END OF EDIT

Obloquy, mere arbiter above Good and Evil and other than both does not work, I'm sorry. What would be the ground for judgement? Brilliance of performance? Artistry? But point about moral law I can accept, sure. I'd rather word it simpler, like 'Ultimate being of God expresses itself as moral imperative in all created beings. To accept the imperative is good. Creature has the right and ability to choose or choose not the acceptance of the imperative. That'd be freedom

cheers

davem

03-14-2005, 05:04 PM

If Melkor was not part of the original plan, then Iluvatar is not omniscient and therefore may not be 'God,' or at least an all-knowing all-powerful one.

Well, one has to distinguish between Eru's plan & Eru's omniscience. The fact that Eru is omniscient merely means he knows what will be, not that he planned it. Eru's omniscience does not deny free will to any of His creatures - they are free to do as they will, but Eru, existing outside space-time & seeing past-present-future from an eternal 'now', knows what they will do. Knowing this, he can take what they do into account & choose what to do about it - in other words, He can alter his original plan to take into account the actions of His creatures, but that doesn't alter the fact that his original plan (the form it had when it arose in His mind) did not include Melkor's rebellion.

I think that Iluvatar bet ("played dice" ) that by giving Melkor all of the abilities of the other Valar that he would be prideful, rebel, create new music and in the end fulfill Iluvatar's intentions of creating things more wonderful than Iluvatar could have achieved sans Melkor.

Problem with this is that Melkor suffered as a result of his pride & his resulting rebellion. If Eru had intended his rebellion He must also have intended his suffering, making him 'evil', or at best amoral. On the other hand, if Eru simply made use of Melkor's free choices, while notintending them, he remains 'Good', as Melkor's suffering is a consequence of his own freely willed choices.

God isn't just "good" because he never makes an error that leads to bad, he is the ultimate good because that's what he chooses to define himself as. He is the arbiter on a tier above the two sides.

One could argue that rather than 'Eru is 'Good'' we should say 'Good' is Eru' - ie 'Good' is whatever Eru says it is? (Eru as a kind of divine Humpty-dumpty - 'When I use a word it means exactly what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less'). I don't think this works in the context of Middle earth, as there is a(n unstated) 'natural law', a moral code which is logically consistent & understandable. In short, Eru is not a chaotic but intelligent 'force', acting arbitrarily. At the very least 'Good' & evil (as Aragorn points out to Eomer) do not change over the years.

If 'Good' was simply what Eru decided it was at any particular juncture, then how could a man judge what was Good & what was evil. The fact that within Middle earth a man can judge 'as he always has done' (& as his ancestors similarly had done) implies that there is some kind of objective standard of what constitutes the 'Good'. Now, in Middle earth there is no equivalent of the Bible or the Quran, & 'right' & 'wrong, Good & evil are simply known (& either accepted or rejected) by each individual. This can only be because each individual, having their ultimate origin in the Mind of Eru, has 'inherited' something of that divinity (the individual fea), & knows the difference between right & wrong. If Eru's 'values' are simply arbitrary then each individual's value system (in a world without revelation) would be equally arbitrary - but we know that this is not the case. There is no equivalent to the Ten Commandments in Middle earth, so the fact that there is a general agreement on what constitutes the 'Good' means that it must be logically consistent, & it must make sense to live by it (ie it must provide some kind of social benefit).

Which brings me to what what you say about Eru 'choosing' to define Himself as 'Good'. Does this mean that He has made a choice to be Good but could equally well have chosen to be 'evil'? Wouldn't this mean that Good & evil are moral 'equivalents' neither one more valid than the other? Perhaps on the 'cosmic' level, but on the level of day to day reality 'good' behaviour benefits the greatest number of people & harms the least number. Yet if Ea is structured in such a way that this is the case, & Ea arose in the mind of Eru, as part of His original plan, one can only assume that this 'choice' was made because in His omniscience, knowing Good & evil, He saw that 'Good' was better.

Of course, one cannot assume at all that He made such a 'choice' - maybe the 'Good' is a reflection of His nature - ie, He is 'Good', His nature corresponds to an objective standard of 'Goodness'.

(Its amazing what rubbish one produces when one is bored :p)

Celebaglar

03-14-2005, 09:00 PM

Melkor was obviously evil once he came to Arda, but beforehand I would have to agree with others that technically he wasn't, though he was in discord with Iluvatar. Was this pre-Arda discord because of pride, which is considered to be evil (discord - pride - evil)? Was he 'evil' because he failed to harmonize with the others, and maybe even worse, because he also silenced others, limiting their freedom?

No Melkor was not evil in the beginning. Melkor was in my oppinion to ambitious, he wanted power and to make things he believed in his mind to be good. He could be labelled as smarter than the rest of the ainur, for he thought independantly, and when he was shunned for his originality or difference, that is when he began to grow 'evil' as we know it, by disdaining the restrictions as his power as one of the ainur. My post seems a little strange, but i thought of how it might be from Melkors view. I believe he can be compared most accurately to a human as a Hitler type of person, he allowed his jealousy to grow out control into hatred.

alatar

03-14-2005, 10:08 PM

Thanks to all for the kind words.

Suppose I have a cow, and a garden. Suppose further the cow defecated on a path in my garden. It is not a proper place for a cow to do the deed, and evaluation I may give the event would be ‘bad’. My further course of action may be manifold:

1. I may use the manure to dung the flowerbed and grow flowers
2. I may simply throw it away

It does not follow, though:

1. That I was obliged to use that particular ‘bad’ piece of manure for fertilization
2. That I was unable to grow flowers by other means if I threw it away, after all

That I take it up and use it for better purposes, thus ‘cleansing’ the paths in my garden back to original and producing more beauty through doings of my cow, is my glory

I assume that one could remove the manure from the garden, as if it had never happened. Or, next year, not allow the cow in the garden at all. Or plant a new garden with a fence and a 'no cow' rule. From a worm's POV, it would seem that the Gardener could have done something about the organic material, and if not, then either chose not to ("I'll work it into my glory") or could not do so ("I can't alter the cow's free will"). When the worm overhears the Gardener talking in the garden, and hears that the Gardener could completely destroy the garden, replant the garden, remove the manure, eat the cow, etc, and yet the cow gets back in again and does 'the deed' again, some worms may begin to doubt the Gardener's abilities or desires.

Anyway, as I know nothing of cows, but more about canines - especially one in particular that lives with us and is treated as if it were human (sigh)...when I go out into the backyard to clean it up, inevitably (and if there is a universal law, this may be it), I step in what we refer to as the dog's "business." Initially, I want to blame her, but really, it's my fault. I wasn't careful enough, I let the job go undone to where the odds of stepping on grass decreased, etc. I am ultimately responsible for the dog and where it does its business.

Surely God takes some of the responsibility for the business.

EDIT: point about freedom - when I gave my cow the freedom to walk my garden, I certainly counted for possibility it may do the thing in inappropriate place. That I hoped it would be a good cow, and not use the freedom I gave her to defecate there is, I believe, obvious.

A cow eats grass, and the waste product goes where? It's not like you would say, "hey, call the TV news! I think that my cow defecated!" You knew full well what the cow does, and assuming that you really know this cow, you also know that the chances of 'going in the garden' are high, yet you still let it in. Is the cow bad for doing what it must do? Is not the Gardener bad for placing the cow in the Garden then calling it not good for what is natural for the cow? Did the Gardener tell the cow not to do said deed? Did the cow understanfd?

Poor cow. :)

alatar

03-14-2005, 10:32 PM

Well, one has to distinguish between Eru's plan & Eru's omniscience. The fact that Eru is omniscient merely means he knows what will be, not that he planned it. Eru's omniscience does not deny free will to any of His creatures - they are free to do as they will, but Eru, existing outside space-time & seeing past-present-future from an eternal 'now', knows what they will do. Knowing this, he can take what they do into account & choose what to do about it - in other words, He can alter his original plan to take into account the actions of His creatures, but that doesn't alter the fact that his original plan (the form it had when it arose in His mind) did not include Melkor's rebellion.

So what you are saying is that Eru knew that Melkor would rebel, yet he went ahead and created him anyway. This is one of my issues with omniscience, infinite, etc beings as it just doesn't make sense.

Problem with this is that Melkor suffered as a result of his pride & his resulting rebellion. If Eru had intended his rebellion He must also have intended his suffering, making him 'evil', or at best amoral. On the other hand, if Eru simply made use of Melkor's free choices, while notintending them, he remains 'Good', as Melkor's suffering is a consequence of his own freely willed choices.

Eru, knowing the future yet not changing the present to avoid said future, condemned multitudes to lives of pain, suffering and anguish. And I'm not talking about Eldar or Edain - what about the orcs? Assume not the originals, but your standard Third Age model. What chance does said orc have in regards to free will? Even, presumably, if an orc could be 'good,' it would be either cut down by its brethren or by the forces of good ("hey guys, wait! I'm on your side...")

Thanks a lot, Eru - guess that free will stuff is only for the pretty people.

Now, in Middle earth there is no equivalent of the Bible or the Quran, & 'right' & 'wrong, Good & evil are simply known (& either accepted or rejected) by each individual. This can only be because each individual, having their ultimate origin in the Mind of Eru, has 'inherited' something of that divinity (the individual fea), & knows the difference between right & wrong. If Eru's 'values' are simply arbitrary then each individual's value system (in a world without revelation) would be equally arbitrary - but we know that this is not the case. There is no equivalent to the Ten Commandments in Middle earth, so the fact that there is a general agreement on what constitutes the 'Good' means that it must be logically consistent, & it must make sense to live by it (ie it must provide some kind of social benefit).

Are not the orcs Children of Eru? Or are they condemned from birth with some taint of Melkor that does not permit them to know both good and evil, and so they cannot choose. One would then say that the orcs are neither good nor bad but only doing what they naturally do.

Which brings me to what what you say about Eru 'choosing' to define Himself as 'Good'. Does this mean that He has made a choice to be Good but could equally well have chosen to be 'evil'? Wouldn't this mean that Good & evil are moral 'equivalents' neither one more valid than the other? Perhaps on the 'cosmic' level, but on the level of day to day reality 'good' behaviour benefits the greatest number of people & harms the least number. Yet if Ea is structured in such a way that this is the case, & Ea arose in the mind of Eru, as part of His original plan, one can only assume that this 'choice' was made because in His omniscience, knowing Good & evil, He saw that 'Good' was better.

How can one judge the maker of reality? I would like to dip into Christianity to make a point (Note that I have no desire to offend any person or creed, but just am making an argument):

Assume that the Christian God, who is stated to be Good, created me. Assume that I will end up in eternal punishment through my own free will as the evidence sufficient to win over my created brain is lacking. Assume that this God knows this. Why did he create me only to have me suffer for eternity? Given the choice, I would have asked not to be created. Is this god good or evil?

Same god promises land to a group of people. This land is currently occupied. The newcomers exterminate the occupants. Yet this God prohibits murder. But there obviously are exceptions....Is this god good or evil?

(Its amazing what rubbish one produces when one is bored :p)

Agreed. It's also amazing what one will write when one starts ranting on (and I mean me!).

Formendacil

03-15-2005, 12:34 AM

Great posts, davem and HerenIstarion! What I wanted to say, but couldn't/didn't.

A cow eats grass, and the waste product goes where? It's not like you would say, "hey, call the TV news! I think that my cow defecated!" You knew full well what the cow does, and assuming that you really know this cow, you also know that the chances of 'going in the garden' are high, yet you still let it in. Is the cow bad for doing what it must do? Is not the Gardener bad for placing the cow in the Garden then calling it not good for what is natural for the cow? Did the Gardener tell the cow not to do said deed? Did the cow understanfd?

There is a major difference between a cow and a man, that of free will. It is the perennial problem of a parable: if you translate God to a man, what do you translate a man to? If to another man, then God loses the greater wisdom and power that He has over man. If to a lower life form, then man loses the free will which defines his relationship with God. A parable is an imprecise way of explaining things, intended not to be taken at 100% face value.

Eru, knowing the future yet not changing the present to avoid said future, condemned multitudes to lives of pain, suffering and anguish. And I'm not talking about Eldar or Edain - what about the orcs? Assume not the originals, but your standard Third Age model. What chance does said orc have in regards to free will? Even, presumably, if an orc could be 'good,' it would be either cut down by its brethren or by the forces of good ("hey guys, wait! I'm on your side...")

Thanks a lot, Eru - guess that free will stuff is only for the pretty people.

Tolkien himself struggled with this- hence his perennial indecision as to their origins. Are they man, animal, vegetable, or mineral? Therefore, to bring up the orks is a rather invalid argument, and not quite pertinent to the discussion at hand. Unless unequivocal proof can be displayed about Tolkien's decision on the subject, it is like the Balrog wings debate: fascinating, with support for each and every opinion, but impossible to decide completely, and not much help in any other debate.

Assume that the Christian God, who is stated to be Good, created me. Assume that I will end up in eternal punishment through my own free will as the evidence sufficient to win over my created brain is lacking. Assume that this God knows this. Why did he create me only to have me suffer for eternity? Given the choice, I would have asked not to be created. Is this god good or evil?

Would it be fair though, for a good God to treat the evil and the good the same? After all, justice is an essential component of goodness. Is it just, therefore, for God to treat an amoral, immoral, murderer-rapist who enjoyed his life to the fullest at the expense of others, with no thought of repentence, with exactly the same reward as child-saint who was poor, starved, and abused, but love with all his little heart?

Besides which, anyone who is truly evil is someone who REJECTS God entirely. Such a person could never live in Heaven because Heaven would be anathema to him. Death would change such a person's free will, because God abides by the rules that HE had put into place, and his free will would not allow him to accept a life in heaven, praising, thanking, and glorifying the God he had rejected.

Same god promises land to a group of people. This land is currently occupied. The newcomers exterminate the occupants. Yet this God prohibits murder. But there obviously are exceptions....Is this god good or evil?

But God did not commit the murders, so how are we to know that he condoned them? He did not write the Book of Judges personally, so how do we know that he approved them? Wouldn't the author want divine approval for his people's takeover? Wouldn't that legitimize their right to it?

More importantly though, who are we to say that the Canaanites didn't deserve it when the Israelites came and slaughtered them? They weren't saints, they worshiped the same idols that God condemns again and again throughout the Old Testament, and that He repeatedly punishes the Israelites for worshipping.

My point is that there is a bit more to the situation than you seem to be making out...

HerenIstarion

03-15-2005, 05:04 AM

Assume that the Christian God, who is stated to be Good, created me. Assume that I will end up in eternal punishment through my own free will as the evidence sufficient to win over my created brain is lacking. Assume that this God knows this. Why did he create me only to have me suffer for eternity? Given the choice, I would have asked not to be created. Is this god good or evil?

emphasis mine

This was already answered by Formendacil, but I'd like to add up a tiny bit. See, per instance Descent into Hell (http://69.51.5.41/showpost.php?p=379334&postcount=12) by Lush, post #12. It is just another parable to back up Formendacil (i.e. God does not throw creature out of heaven, creature, as a consequence of its free will, withdraws itself out of it)

Another comment (to emphasized part of it) - the evidence the brain may lack or have in abundance is if not of no, but of minor consequence here. 'Inscrutable are...'. The built-in standards of what is Good (moral imperatives we've been discussing earlier) are the guidelines. The will is what counts, not intellectual ability or lack thereof, not physical prowess or lack thereof. 'Rich will not inherit the kingdom' does not necessarily imply literally rich, but may include intellectually rich, and rich with health etc etc.

This is seen through LoTR, see LotR -- Book 3 - Chapter 02 - The Riders of Rohan (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?p=362652), post #3

do I write like an archivist, solemnly producing dry sheets of paper out of dusty shelves, :rolleyes: ? Well, for those with lack of time to follow links, short summary:

A. Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another among Men. It is a man’s part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house

B. Yet in doubt a man of worth will trust to his own wisdom
C. It shall not be so. I myself will go to war, to fall in the front of the battle, if it must be. Thus shall I sleep better

Mark you, that in B entry, wisdom does not equal intellect, or amount of information one is in possession of. It is rather knowledge of built-in moral imperative than empirical data. It does not imply also that those who make their living by those lines know there is Eru at all. And in a way, the lack of such knowledge glorifies their sticking by their credo even more.

cheers

The Saucepan Man

03-15-2005, 07:38 AM

Therefore, to bring up the orks is a rather invalid argument, and not quite pertinent to the discussion at hand. Unless unequivocal proof can be displayed about Tolkien's decision on the subject, it is like the Balrog wings debate: fascinating, with support for each and every opinion, but impossible to decide completely, and not much help in any other debate.I have to disagree with you there. Orcs are a part of Arda and are therefore relevant to any discussion concerning the nature of its ultimate Creator and His realtionship with good and evil. One might seek to explain them, but one cannot dismiss them.

The explanation most consistent with the theological and moral tone of the Legendarium, I suppose, is that Orcs were mere beasts or automatons, rather than a sentient and free-willed race of beings. But I have never been able to accept this proposition as it is wholly at odds with my conception of Orcs, particularly those whom we meet as individuals, as derived from Tolkien's published works.

And yet they do seem only to have limited free-will. There is no suggestion that Orcs were able to choose between good and evil, and indeed the clear indication is that they were unable to act in any way other than evilly.

Which does, I think, raise a valid question as to why Eru saw fit to countenance the creation, and continued existence, of a wholly evil race that had no opportunity of repentance (during their lives, at least).

davem

03-15-2005, 08:20 AM

Eru, knowing the future yet not changing the present to avoid said future, condemned multitudes to lives of pain, suffering and anguish. And I'm not talking about Eldar or Edain - what about the orcs? Assume not the originals, but your standard Third Age model. What chance does said orc have in regards to free will? Even, presumably, if an orc could be 'good,' it would be either cut down by its brethren or by the forces of good ("hey guys, wait! I'm on your side...")

Thanks a lot, Eru - guess that free will stuff is only for the pretty people.

Are not the orcs Children of Eru? Or are they condemned from birth with some taint of Melkor that does not permit them to know both good and evil, and so they cannot choose. One would then say that the orcs are neither good nor bad but only doing what they naturally do.

Eru had an original plan, which didn't include orcs. This was to be the blueprint for Arda. However, Melkor, utilising his Eru given free will, decided to change that blueprint. Eru, having freely given free will to Melkor, could not take it back - otherwise it would not have been a 'gift'. Once created & given autonomy (indeed probably once concieved in the mind of Eru) there is no going back. Eru may know what will come but he does not dictate it. He is just as bound by the 'Rules' as his creatures.

Assume that the Christian God, who is stated to be Good, created me. Assume that I will end up in eternal punishment through my own free will as the evidence sufficient to win over my created brain is lacking. Assume that this God knows this. Why did he create me only to have me suffer for eternity? Given the choice, I would have asked not to be created. Is this god good or evil?

Ah, but for you to have such a choice between not having been created or spending eternity in hell, you would have to exist. You seem to require God to make your choices for you before you even come into being. Whether you end up 'damned' or 'saved' will be a consequence of your freely willed choices. God can't make your choices for you & then force them on you - if He did then he would simply be a puppet master.

But this is getting off topic, as there is no hell or eternal damnation in Middle earth. Sentient beings, on death, go to the Halls of Mandos to learn the lessons of their lives. I would assume that if Orcs were sentient beings, descended from Elves, then dying they would pass to Mandos to be purified & perhaps re-born in their original forms - of course that's just speculation on my part & I can't recall whether Tolkien wrote anything about Orcs going to Mandos

The Saucepan Man

03-15-2005, 09:44 AM

Eru may know what will come but he does not dictate it. He is just as bound by the 'Rules' as his creatures.Yet he can intervene - or so we are led to believe by incidents such as Bilbo's finding of the Ring and Gollum's fatal stumble at Sammath Naur.

alatar

03-15-2005, 11:05 AM

Thanks all for the great feedback!

There is a major difference between a cow and a man, that of free will. A parable is an imprecise way of explaining things, intended not to be taken at 100% face value.

Very much agreed, and this is why I find it interesting when limits are placed on something classified as a 'god.' We are limited to 4 dimensions and yet speak of subtleties of an N-dimensional being. And so again, what do the labels 'good' and 'evil' mean to something that it outside of time and space? Though his brethren saw him as evil, did Eru see Melkor as a necessary component, increasing the overall 'good' of the universe? Is this like a twist on the Second Law of Thermodynamics where local pockets of evil are tolerated as the overall good increases?

Tolkien himself struggled with this- hence his perennial indecision as to their origins. Are they man, animal, vegetable, or mineral? Therefore, to bring up the orks is a rather invalid argument, and not quite pertinent to the discussion at hand. Unless unequivocal proof can be displayed about Tolkien's decision on the subject, it is like the Balrog wings debate: fascinating, with support for each and every opinion, but impossible to decide completely, and not much help in any other debate.

As pointed out by The Saucepan Man, I would say that the orcs are part of the argument. If we assume that they were originally elves, then how were the Eru-implanted souls removed? Did Melkor have the ability or permission to do this? What happened to these souls? If the orcs are soulless creatures, then how do they function? Aule's Dwarves needed his constant guidance until Eru endowed them with free will. Or we can assume that the orcs are like any other sentient beings in ME, yet due to some original taint, always choose the darkness (and maybe the Professor didn't know that anyone would have so much time on their hands to think about all of this ;) ).

Would it be fair though, for a good God to treat the evil and the good the same? After all, justice is an essential component of goodness. Is it just, therefore, for God to treat an amoral, immoral, murderer-rapist who enjoyed his life to the fullest at the expense of others, with no thought of repentence, with exactly the same reward as child-saint who was poor, starved, and abused, but love with all his little heart?

What do I know of Eru's plans? Without Ungoliant, we would not have Beren and Luthien. And not to go off topic too much, but what about Judas, Pharoah, Nero? God created and used these people to further his plan.

Besides which, anyone who is truly evil is someone who REJECTS God entirely.

Disagree. Sauron was going with the guy who had a different, bolder theme - Eru just didn't get it that some changes needed to be made for the greater 'good.' And off topic, you are speaking of the Christian God. Consider pantheism, and then is evil rejecting a particular god or gods?

It is just another parable to back up Formendacil (i.e. God does not throw creature out of heaven, creature, as a consequence of its free will, withdraws itself out of it).

So why do I chose to serve Melkor or Eru? All evidence is hearsay. Each side promises a reward. Both sides play by different rules, yet this may be necessary. Eru says that Death is a gift, yet is doesn't seem that way to men. Elves get to 'know' whereas Edain must have 'faith' in regards to what happens after death. Where is the evidence? Melkor and Sauron were brethren of these demi-gods, who speak for the One, and those two may or may not be representative of the whole bunch. Who's to know? Edain ancestors were drowned by the same, heard that*the Elves left one of the 'heavens' after scrapping with the Valar. Hmmm...

The built-in standards of what is Good (moral imperatives we've been discussing earlier) are the guidelines. The will is what counts, not intellectual ability or lack thereof, not physical prowess or lack thereof.

Again, where does this leave the orcs as to me they seem to have wills of their own? One may assume from ROTK where, when the Ring goes into the Crack, that the Mordor army, bereft of Sauron's controlling will, goes nutsy as they need some other will to keep them orderly. However, I would point out that the orcs that were hoping to break away and set up on their own were endowed with some free will and were not automatons. How was the "built-in standard" removed?

Which does, I think, raise a valid question as to why Eru saw fit to countenance the creation, and continued existence, of a wholly evil race that had no opportunity of repentance (during their lives, at least).

Could Melkor have repented? During the ages that he was bound, nothing much happened in Arda worth note. Did Eru make sure that he would be released in order to 'get things going again?' Why did the 'Good' allow Melkor to go free? And I'm supposed to trust these beings' judgements/wisdom?

Eru had an original plan, which didn't include orcs. This was to be the blueprint for Arda. However, Melkor, utilising his Eru given free will, decided to change that blueprint. Eru, having freely given free will to Melkor, could not take it back - otherwise it would not have been a 'gift'. Once created & given autonomy (indeed probably once concieved in the mind of Eru) there is no going back. Eru may know what will come but he does not dictate it. He is just as bound by the 'Rules' as his creatures.

Agreed about the rules. He told the Valar, "here's the game - have at it!" And though I would agree that Melkor may have changed someone's blueprint for Arda, he did not change Eru's unless Eru permitted the same.

Ah, but for you to have such a choice between not having been created or spending eternity in hell, you would have to exist. You seem to require God to make your choices for you before you even come into being. Whether you end up 'damned' or 'saved' will be a consequence of your freely willed choices. God can't make your choices for you & then force them on you - if He did then he would simply be a puppet master.

Didn't think about that - thanks. Still, assume that I'm an average shmoe - no big sins, just choose the wrong side of the balrog wings debate, which ends up sending me to Hell. How can I assume that the god who sent me there was 'good?' I will spend a very finite drop of eternity in the 'choosing' phase, and the remainder in punishment. Great system. (by the by, no wings! ;) )

But this is getting off topic, as there is no hell or eternal damnation in Middle earth.

Agreed. I have been trying to limit my comments to ME, but some points are made more easily using other sources. Not sure if the rest of you do, but I find ME more black and white than the real world. There is evil and there is good. The side to choose is pretty clear.

Thanks for the brain workout and for tolerating my ramblings.

Formendacil

03-15-2005, 12:33 PM

I have to disagree with you there. Orcs are a part of Arda and are therefore relevant to any discussion concerning the nature of its ultimate Creator and His realtionship with good and evil. One might seek to explain them, but one cannot dismiss them.

The explanation most consistent with the theological and moral tone of the Legendarium, I suppose, is that Orcs were mere beasts or automatons, rather than a sentient and free-willed race of beings. But I have never been able to accept this proposition as it is wholly at odds with my conception of Orcs, particularly those whom we meet as individuals, as derived from Tolkien's published works.

And yet they do seem only to have limited free-will. There is no suggestion that Orcs were able to choose between good and evil, and indeed the clear indication is that they were unable to act in any way other than evilly.

What I was saying is that the orks cannot be presented as strong evidence in this argument one way or another, with regards to a forgiving/condemning Eru, because we do not know their origins and their degree of free will.

If they do not have free will, then how is it wrong/unjust to condemn them? And as you note, there is conflicting evidence about how free the orks wills are exactly. Even Tolkien couldn't make his mind up.

The Saucepan Man

03-15-2005, 12:54 PM

What I was saying is that the orks cannot be presented as strong evidence in this argument one way or another, with regards to a forgiving/condemning Eru, because we do not know their origins and their degree of free will.I would say that, on the basis of "pure" canon alone (ie the works published by Tolkien during his lifetime), the evidence points strongly towards Orcs being a sentient race with limited free will - ie lacking in the ability (or, at a stretch, the environmental conditions) to choose good.

You are, of course, free to dismiss Orcs as a factor in your thinking on this issue, but that does not make them irrelevant to the discussion, at least as far as those of us who have a reasonably settled view on the nature and origins of Orcs (based on the published works) are concerned.

If they do not have free will, then how is it wrong/unjust to condemn them?Well it certainly seems to me to be unjust to condemn them for something (their evil nature) which they have no choice in. Even assuming that they have the opportunity of redemption following their death, it is wrong that they should be condemned to a life of evil and brutality without having any choice in the matter. Thus I find it problematic that Eru should countenance such a thing.

Formendacil

03-15-2005, 01:04 PM

Well it certainly seems to me to be unjust to condemn them for something (their evil nature) which they have no choice in. Even assuming that they have the opportunity of redemption following their death, it is wrong that they should be condemned to a life of evil and brutality without having any choice in the matter. Thus I find it problematic that Eru should countenance such a thing.

Okay, to put it another way, the origin of the orks is tied not only to the issue of whether they have free will or not, but also whether they have souls. More or less, I would say that it appears plain that if the orks have true free will, they must also have a soul. If so, then yes we come to a confusing muddle of whether it is just to condemn all orks as evil.

On the other hand, if orks do not have free will, and thus a soul, there is not problem in condemning them as evil, because they are essentially the same as animals, and not destined for eternity in any way, shape, or form.

HerenIstarion

03-15-2005, 01:09 PM

Alatar, when you talk about orks which are not automata, I suppose you imply Shagrat and Gorbag (and also Ugluk and Grishnakh), are you?

How was the "built-in standard" removed?

In case of free-willed ork exeptions, it is not. They exhibit the standard - evaluating good and bad in a way similar to one elves or men would follow, labeling certain things bad and immediately ascribing them as inherent to their enemy:

The big fellow with the sharp sword doesn't seem to have thought him worth much anyhow – just left him lying: regular elvish trick

But, almost instantly, we're shown that in fact, they themselves, though acknowledging one, do not follow the code:

D'you remember old Ufthak? We lost him for days. Then we found him in a corner; hanging up he was, but he was wide awake and glaring. How we laughed! She'd forgotten him, maybe, but we didn't touch him-no good interfering with Her

Following after Pet Shop Boys I'm listening to at the moment, I may hum (as is a good feat for a deadnight chanter) under my nose 'it's a sin...'

See also All About Orks (http://www.barrowdowns.com/articles_orcs.php)

obloquy

03-15-2005, 01:29 PM

Would it be fair though, for a good God to treat the evil and the good the same? After all, justice is an essential component of goodness. Is it just, therefore, for God to treat an amoral, immoral, murderer-rapist who enjoyed his life to the fullest at the expense of others, with no thought of repentence, with exactly the same reward as child-saint who was poor, starved, and abused, but love with all his little heart?

Not every Christian believes that the reward for the "good" is Heaven and the punishment for the "bad" is Hell. This particular Christian happens to believe that it is more indicative of a loving, just god that he punishes the wicked by simply denying them life, rather than tormenting them.

Edit: Additionally, yes, it would be "fair" if that's how he chose to do it. He is the source of our sense of justice and fairness, and whether it is an inherent part of our creation or something we learn, it is based on his definition (and example) of justice. He has the ultimate say on the matter.

As far as the Tolkien-related side to this thread, alatar has sort of taken my torch and ran with it so I think I'll leave him to it.

davem

03-15-2005, 01:50 PM

Yet he can intervene - or so we are led to believe by incidents such as Bilbo's finding of the Ring and Gollum's fatal stumble at Sammath Naur.

Well, He had obviously foreseen His own intervention from the beginning, so it was not a spurof the moment decision....

Still, assume that I'm an average shmoe - no big sins, just choose the wrong side of the balrog wings debate, which ends up sending me to Hell. How can I assume that the god who sent me there was 'good?' I will spend a very finite drop of eternity in the 'choosing' phase, and the remainder in punishment. Great system. (by the by, no wings! )

This assumes that God would damn someone to eternal punishment for something trivial. I know there is a strand of extreme fundamentalist Christianity which says that rejecting Jesus as one's personal saviour will result in eternal damnation, but personally I think God is a lot smarter (as well as a lot more compassionate) than that, & that His judgement would be based on looking into the individual's heart. I would go so far as to say that the way some fundamentalists behave is enough to lead many to reject Christianity altogether, but I don't think God would base 'His' judgement on a decision made on those grounds. The 'god' that you have in mind here would,to put it bluntly, not be 'Good', & everything you've said about him would be valid. Personally I don't think God (or Eru) is like that...,

Your freedom to choose anything requires your actual existence - as I said. Yes, you could only end in Hell if you were brought into being, but equally, you could only find Heaven. If 'Hell' is not a place of eternal punishment, but rather of non-being, then you have a free choice - you may choose to accept God, or to reject Him & cease to exist - as you apparently would have wished rather than suffer eternal punishment. So, you do get to choose - you, not God choosing for you. You get to try it out first, make your decision & get the outcome you desire for yourself.....

Agreed about the rules. He told the Valar, "here's the game - have at it!" And though I would agree that Melkor may have changed someone's blueprint for Arda, he did not change Eru's unless Eru permitted the same.

Well, Eru handed over the blueprint but others were left to build what it depicted. There is a deeper question to be dealt with here: Was it necessary for all the suffering & struggle to be gone through as a way of bringing about Arda remade. Did Eru have to allow His Children to get all that stuff 'out of their systems', in order to 'grow up'? Certainly He intervenes, but only occasionally, & only to prevent absolute disaster. Certainly, when He does intervene it is both rare & reluctant. He seems to actually want His children to be free - even if great suffering results for them. Another question is whether that makes him callous, amoral, or extremely loving...

Well it certainly seems to me to be unjust to condemn them for something (their evil nature) which they have no choice in. Even assuming that they have the opportunity of redemption following their death, it is wrong that they should be condemned to a life of evil and brutality without having any choice in the matter. Thus I find it problematic that Eru should countenance such a thing.

Why is this problematic. Orcs play their part in the cosmic drama & after death are able to see the truth & make a decision as to their moral stance & Eru's judgement of them would be based on that.

alatar

03-15-2005, 02:45 PM

Alatar, when you talk about orks which are not automata, I suppose you imply Shagrat and Gorbag (and also Ugluk and Grishnakh), are you?

Sorry, but can't remember to which I refer (and as Essex well knows, I still haven't reclaimed my books...). Weren't there orcs that were tired of war and desired to get out of Mordor, and another admonishes the one regarding rebel talk or sticking with their own kind (and not the wraths) or something?

But, almost instantly, we're shown that in fact, they themselves, though acknowledging one, do not follow the code:

They survive by being very pragmatic and individualistic. Why try to save the spider-food orc when it could only mean more losses? The Little Folk and Bree folk seem more than ready to allow someone else to fix the problem of Sauron - passing by the man on the side of the road, if you catch my allusion. And one might say that the other Free folk are only doing some heavy lifting as it is in their best selfish interests.

And with such a code there were no inter-Free folk wars, slayings, injustices, etc.

Following after Pet Shop Boys I'm listening to at the moment, I may hum (as is a good feat for a deadnight chanter) under my nose 'it's a sin...'

Ever hear the line from Depeche Mode's Strangelove, "...I give in, to sin, because I like to practice what I preach." One of my favorites.

The Saucepan Man

03-15-2005, 02:58 PM

Okay, to put it another way, the origin of the orks is tied not only to the issue of whether they have free will or not, but also whether they have souls. More or less, I would say that it appears plain that if the orks have true free will, they must also have a soul. If so, then yes we come to a confusing muddle of whether it is just to condemn all orks as evil.

On the other hand, if orks do not have free will, and thus a soul, there is not problem in condemning them as evil, because they are essentially the same as animals, and not destined for eternity in any way, shape, or form.Well, as I said, the evidence suggests to me that they (or at least some of them) were sentient, which suggests to me that they had souls, even if their free will was limited. But why is it just to condemn beasts to a life of brutality and suffering? Do lives not matter to Eru if they don't have souls?

Why is this problematic. Orcs play their part in the cosmic drama & after death are able to see the truth & make a decision as to their moral stance & Eru's judgement of them would be based on that.It is problematic because they still have to live out their lives (and quite possibly some of them were "immortal" in the same way that Elves are) in a state of evil being without them having any choice in the matter. Why should they be denied "worldly" choice, when it is enjoyed by the other races of Arda?

Well, He had obviously foreseen His own intervention from the beginning, so it was not a spur of the moment decision....But it was not part of his plan, since that did not anticipate Melchor's rebellion. Which suggests that he is able to change his plan where necessary. So, to return to alatar's point, he could have intervened to prevent Melchor's tainting of Arda (and foreseen that) if he wished. To do so would have involved interfering with his gift of free will to Melchor, yes, but no more so than his later interventions with regard to those affected by them.

HerenIstarion

03-15-2005, 03:04 PM

They survive by being very pragmatic and individualistic

I suppose, Tolkien intended the conversation I provided you with excerpts of was written to show that orks (exceptional ones, those who had free will about them) were crooked. Otherwise, why say that leaving one's companion in trouble is bad, and than behave in an opposite way? If survival was what counted and was approved of, Shagrat and Gorbag would have praised 'big elf warrior' for what they thought he did. 'Clever chap, that warrior, he did exactly what is vital for survival', that kind of thing.

EDIT

to SpM. We just cross-posted. One thing in your post caught my eye:

But why is it just to condemn beasts to a life of brutality and suffering? Do lives not matter to Eru if they don't have souls

That's why we have taint of Morgoth in the matter of Arda concept. The chain is as follows:

All matter has a bit of Morgoth in it - all matter will be unmade in the end - orks (but for exceptions) are made of matter, therefore they also will be unmade in the end. So human and elven bodies will be destroyed in the end. It does not follow life does not matter for Eru. He created it, after all :) No justice involved, just necessity.

For one, nothing temporal may be eternal. For two, nothing of Morgoth will last

As for exceptions, I could not find it at the spot (your archivist is getting older, you see), but I remember arguing elsewhere that none of orks in LoTR who have a hint or even slightest trace of will and individuality about them are treated as 'mere matter'. I believe it is author's intention as well - to have Shagrat and Gorbag kill each other, to have Grishnakh killed by stray arrow, to have Ugluk fought by Eomer on foot and alone, though it would have been as easy to have him shot from the horseback and so forth.

To do so would have involved interfering with his gift of free will to Melchor, yes, but no more so than his later interventions with regard to those affected by them

More so. Interventions always follow the pattern of natural events - Numenor is drowned in a flood which might have been caused by a chain of perfectly natural events, Gollum falls because of another chain of events, ring was found by Bilbo because of third chain of events etc. Besides, interventions do not suspend the free will of doers, they correct/change consequences of their doings

Melkor's abilities included ability of tainting a matter. Denying him such an ability, I suppose, could not have been done following 'chain of events' pattern. It would have invloved direct forcible removing of ability = direct suspense of free will = against the rules Eru sets himself = can not be done

Third - intervention will take place - the Arda will be remade. That is the greatest intervention of them all. For us, it haven't happened yet, but Eru is outside time. It may be (if the concept that God lives in eternal 'now' be correct) that for him, the moment of creation happens at the same time as moment of redemption. It is from our perspective, from the inside of time, that we may ask quesitons of the 'why haven't He done that, or this'. For all we know, all necessary things have been done, we haven't reached them yet in time.

Besides, it was already mentioned, that knowing things does not equal affecting them. I know the moon moves by an orbit around the earth. Based on certain calculations, I can bet you a dollar it will move likewise tomorrow. I know the fact beforehand. Yet, my possession of the data does not affect said orbit in no way at all

END OF EDIT

davem

03-15-2005, 03:16 PM

It is problematic because they still have to live out their lives (and quite possibly some of them were "immortal" in the same way that Elves are) in a state of evil being without them having any choice in the matter. Why should they be denied "worldly" choice, when it is enjoyed by the other races of Arda?

How much absolute freedom of choice does any race (or individual) actually have. The freedom of choice of every individual is limited by circumstances. Hence any judement of them would be made with this taken into account.

But it was not part of his plan, since that did not anticipate Melchor's rebellion. Which suggests that he is able to change his plan where necessary. So, to return to alatar's point, he could have intervened to prevent Melchor's tainting of Arda (and foreseen that) if he wished. To do so would have involved interfering with his gift of free will to Melchor, yes, but no more so than his later interventions with regard to those affected by them.

Not part of His original plan, certainly. Whether that plan ever actually changed is open to question. Surely its possible that that 'ideal' concept never changed & is the blueprintg for Arda Remade. Eru's interventions are intended, perhaps, to steer Arda Marred towards the form of the original plan. Yet, Arda Remade will not be an exact manifestation of the original plan, as Eru has given both free will & the capacity to sub-create to his creatures.

I still say that Eru's (rare) interventions are to prevent absolute disaster, to pull Middle earth back from the brink. Eru intervenes, & to that extent takes away (temporarily) his gift of free will, but only when it is necessary to protect his children from being completely destroyed. Hence, though He may have felt great pain at the creation of Orcs, their existence was not a threat to the survival of Middle earth, so he let that part of the Music continue. And even if orcs retain the 'immortality' they had as Elves, in the context of eternity, which is the perspective from which Eru views things, it is only a phase of their existence.

Formendacil

03-15-2005, 08:14 PM

Not every Christian believes that the reward for the "good" is Heaven and the punishment for the "bad" is Hell. This particular Christian happens to believe that it is more indicative of a loving, just god that he punishes the wicked by simply denying them life, rather than tormenting them.

A Catholic who knows and believes what his/her church teaches does, including both myself and the good professor, but that's hardly the point. If there is any point, it is that this is where I am coming from in writing what I have.

Still, assume that I'm an average shmoe - no big sins, just choose the wrong side of the balrog wings debate, which ends up sending me to Hell. How can I assume that the god who sent me there was 'good?' I will spend a very finite drop of eternity in the 'choosing' phase, and the remainder in punishment. Great system. (by the by, no wings! )

Well, at least we agree on the Balrog wings. You have a hope of salvation! ;)

Okay, I'm just joking!!!

Or perhaps, not quite...

Hope. There is always the HOPE of salvation, the belief that a merciful God will forgive. The only person to whom heaven is totally and utterly denied is to he who utters rejects God. To all others, there is the hope of heaven, and the hope not ending up in Hell. This is the concept of divine mercy, which goes hand in hand with that of divine justice.

After all, if only the truly unrepentant go to Hell, then surely only the great saints can be said to have come close to achieving Heaven. Here is where the Catholic dogma of Purgatory comes in. Purgatory is the place of PURGING, of cleansing the soul so that it is cleaned of sin and ready for Heaven.

No person will be condemned to Hell for not having had the opportunity to join the Church (primitives, people who never heard of it, unborn babies, people before Christ), nor will those who have tried to lead a good life according to what they know and/or believe (Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Proddies, atheists, etc... :p )

No offence is intended by the above, just a more or less blanket statement that Catholics believe that all people who try to lead a good life have a real hope of Heaven. Even Balrog-Wingers!

Perhaps along the same lines one can view the orks.

Supposing that the average ork, having never heard anything of good, having been trained by birth and genetics to do evil, and whose entire environment is one that encourages evil, is brought before Eru in judgement. What then? If you consider Iluvatar to be one and the same as God (the premise on which I am basing more or less all of my arguments thus far), then would Iluvatar condemn the ork to eternal hellfire?

I personally think that Iluvatar would look at the ork's life, at how he lived, and then look deep into his soul. Iluvatar then learns whether or not the ork rejects His forgiveness and mercy, or whether it rejects it.

(Remember that this is in the afterlife, beyond the circles of the world after the destructio of Arda, so the ork is no longer blinded by prejudices of any sort, by the constraints of his physical form, or anything of that nature. His choice is completely his own, not influenced by any factor).

If the ork accepts forgiveness, then comes Purgatory, and the "Purging" of the ork's soul, to the point it the once-ork is now in an Elf-state, and able to join in singing Iluvatar's praises in Arda Remade.

The Saucepan Man

03-16-2005, 07:41 AM

It would have invloved direct forcible removing of ability = direct suspense of free will = against the rules Eru sets himself = can not be doneI am sure that he could have come up with suitably indirect interventions to achieve the same aim. After all, his interventions in the Third Age effectively denied Sauron of all his abilities without requiring direct action against Sauron himself.

I still say that Eru's (rare) interventions are to prevent absolute disaster, to pull Middle earth back from the brink.Well, I would say that Melkor's tainting of Arda was pretty disastrous. As I recall, he never intervened once to obstruct Morgoth's various attempts at world domination, whereas he intervened a number of times to foil Sauron's plans. Is this favouritism, or were the inhabitants of Arda somehow less well equipped to deal with Sauron themselves than they were with Morgoth?

How much absolute freedom of choice does any race (or individual) actually have. The freedom of choice of every individual is limited by circumstances.Yes, free will is necessarily constrained by circumstances, physical geography, environment etc. But the limitation on the Orcs' freedom of choice goes much further than this. They appear to have been denied the opportunity to choose good under any circumstances. If it was just down to their upbringing, I would still expect a small, but significant, proportion of Orcs to reject evil, just as some brought up in a moral and caring environment will nevertheless turn bad.

I personally think that Iluvatar would look at the ork's life, at how he lived, and then look deep into his soul. Iluvatar then learns whether or not the ork rejects His forgiveness and mercy, or whether it rejects it.Well that's fine for the putative good Orc after he has died. But he still has to behave evilly, and suffer accordingly, throughout his life - which (Eru's perspective notwithstanding) will seem a very long time to him.

Perhaps it's because I have no firm belief in the afterlife that I find it difficult to accept that a life of (inescapable) brutality and suffering is acceptable as long as one can look forward to redemption in the hereafter. But it does seem to me from what you are all saying that Eru places greater value on the afterlives of the beings of Arda than on their actual lives. And he seems not to value non-sentient (ie soulless) beings at all.

davem

03-16-2005, 08:28 AM

Well, I would say that Melkor's tainting of Arda was pretty disastrous. As I recall, he never intervened once to obstruct Morgoth's various attempts at world domination, whereas he intervened a number of times to foil Sauron's plans. Is this favouritism, or were the inhabitants of Arda somehow less well equipped to deal with Sauron themselves than they were with Morgoth?

How would you have wished Him to intervene against Morgoth - given that there was no 'quick fix' option (ie destroying of a Ring)? It seems to me that the difference between his direct intervention in the Third Age & his non-intervention in the First is that the Valar were strong enough to deal with Morgoth themselves, & it was a battle of opposing forces. The result did bring devastation to most of Beleriand as a consequence, though. In the Third Age, no one individual could have taken the Ring to the Fire & cast it in of their own free will. Hence it was a matter of Eru stepping in & achieving the Quest, or allowing Middle earth to be taken over by Sauron or his replacement. Eru intervenes because no-one else can do the task at hand.

Yes, free will is necessarily constrained by circumstances, physical geography, environment etc. But the limitation on the Orcs' freedom of choice goes much further than this. They appear to have been denied the opportunity to choose good under any circumstances. If it was just down to their upbringing, I would still expect a small, but significant, proportion of Orcs to reject evil, just as some brought up in a moral and caring environment will nevertheless turn bad.

Surely the Orc will be judged with the very constraints you point out in mind. Less would be expected of the Orc than of a man, Elf or Hobbit. In other words, because of their more privileged position, & the fact that 'goodness' would be a far easier prospect for members of those races, they would have to struggle just as hard (relatively) as Orcs.

Perhaps it's because I have no firm belief in the afterlife that I find it difficult to accept that a life of (inescapable) brutality and suffering is acceptable as long as one can look forward to redemption in the hereafter. But it does seem to me from what you are all saying that Eru places greater value on the afterlives of the beings of Arda than on their actual lives. And he seems not to value non-sentient (ie soulless) beings at all.

Well, we're speaking about Middle earth here, so 'a life of (inescapable) brutality and suffering is' (perhaps) 'acceptable as long as one can look forward to redemption in the hereafter'.

As to Eru placing greater value on afterlives than on lives the only difference between the two is the presence or absence of a hroa...

The Saucepan Man

03-16-2005, 09:04 AM

It seems to me that the difference between his direct intervention in the Third Age & his non-intervention in the First is that the Valar were strong enough to deal with Morgoth themselves, & it was a battle of opposing forces.Presumably, however, if the worst had come to the worst and Sauron had regained the Ring and extended his dominion over the entirety of Middle-earth, the Valar would have been just as capable of defeating him. Did Eru simply want to avoid the destruction that Beleriand had suffered in consequence of just such a thing happening in the First Age?

But surely Eru would have foreseen the damage that Beleriand did suffer in the First Age. Assuming that he did, why did he not take steps to prevent this by means of the simple expedient of (indirectly) ensuring that the Valar did not release Morgoth once they captured him. He would have foreseen that Morgoth had no intention of repenting.

Well, we're speaking about Middle earth here, so 'a life of (inescapable) brutality and suffering is' (perhaps) 'acceptable as long as one can look forward to redemption in the hereafter'.The Orc still has to suffer more, with no choice in the matter, in consequence of the simple fact that he happened randomly to be born an Orc. Or perhaps being born an Orc is not a random event ...

alatar

03-16-2005, 10:34 AM

I would not agree that Eru directly intervened during the Third Age; that's seems a bit overkill. He could have jumped in the game many times during the 'Morgoth years,' yet did so only rarely. When he did intervene, it was for some big thing like changing the layout of Arda.

Just what does divine intervention mean in regards to free will and playing by the rules? Manwe et al should have let Arda burn as eventually Eru would have had to jump in. What does this mean in regards to faith and personal responsibility? If I can force the hand of Eru ("here Sauron, here's your Ring back...okay Eru, do your stuff"!), what does this say about Eru's status/power? And what faith do I need if I know that Eru will only let the game go so far before joining in to catch me up. Was then Melkor right to oppose this thinking? How can one grow if not tested to the limit? I have to 'do my job' as I'm never sure if the eagles are coming or not.

Did not the Valar, who could have easily defeated Sauron, send the Istari so that they would not have to get involved directly? Wasn't that one of the problems with the Elves (direct intervention) where good intentions led to a lot of strife? Eru/Manwe/something may have at most nudged things along a bit, but that would be the extent of 'divine intervention.' Could Eru's intervention be the creation of Hobbits, of which two end up taking down Sauron?

Gandalf, of the same kind as Sauron, was permitted only to use his powers when absolutely necessary - as stated previously, usually to allow for fair game play (Gandalf the referee? ;) ) - yet I guess that Eru can have free rein in ME (then again, it's his so...). Saruman was a contender for the seat, yet was destroyed by beings of ME, not Valar nor Eru.

Also, to presume Eru's intervention diminishes the roles/sacrifices of Frodo et al.

Ainaserkewen

03-16-2005, 11:31 AM

Originally posted by Hookbill, post #2
Many will say he represents Lucifer, Tolkien being Catholic and all that’s an understandable theory. I can sympathise with this theory in many ways, there are some similarities. Firstly he was a mighty spirit, like an angel, and he was the chieftain of them. Like Lucifer, who was a chief angel and is counted to have been given the greatest gifts of power, beauty and wisdom. As was Melkor.
I am told that Lucifer was a chief angel, yes, but of what? The Choir of angels...isnt that interesting. Perhaps a deliberate connection in religion.

Hookbill the Goomba

03-16-2005, 12:58 PM

Ainaserkewen, I'm not sure. I've not checked up on passages referring to Lucifer for a while. But I do not think so. Lucifer means "Son of the Morning", he was given power over the earth and its creatures. I do not think he was a quire angel (But please do correct me if I am wrong). I'm almost certain he was an Arch Angel, if not higher. I know he was once The TOP angel.

But back on topic.

The way i see this whole thing is that Morgoth/Melkor was from before the beginning of creation, going to be evil. There has to be an evil presence in the world, so that mankind (and indeed, elf kind) has a real choice. Between loving God as their creator and father, or rejecting him and turning to evil.

The Story of the Dwarves is where I feel this is most emphasised. Eru says something along the lines of, that if Aulé had left the dwarves as they were, then they would have been nothing more than Robots. Born with no knowledge of anything else than to love their creator. Free will is given, to decide between temporary happiness in Evil and eternal suffering thus, and eternal Happiness in God for a temporary period of suffering.
So, in conclusion, Melkor was made evil in order to give men and elves (and hobbits!) the chance to chose between good and evil. So that they could see the difference and have a real choice. That way, if they chose to love Eru, it is real love and not artificial and not forced.

That's what I think. Feel free to criticize.

The Saucepan Man

03-16-2005, 01:02 PM

Also, to presume Eru's intervention diminishes the roles/sacrifices of Frodo et al.Not if one assumes that Eru can only intervene indirectly and in circumstances where not to do so would result in the complete victory of those seeking to oppose his will notwithstanding the best efforts of those on the side of good. Although that still leaves open the question of whether the "hand of providence" at Sammath Naur fell within this "Rule" since, even if Sauron prevailed in the face of the best the endeavours of Frodo et al, the Valar could presumably still have sailed east and defeated him. Could it therefore be said to have represented a complete victory on Sauron's part?

Of course, if we do assume that Eru is bound by this "Rule" (whatever its extent) then it must have been self-imposed, since the existence of a being greater than him would run contrary to Tolkien's conception and portrayal of him.

Edit:

So, in conclusion, Melkor was made evil in order to give men and elves (and hobbits!) the chance to chose between good and evil. So that they could see the difference and have a real choice. This picks up an alatar's idea that Melkor's fall was part of Eru's plan for Arda. As I understand it, this is similar in some ways to some interpretations of the role of Judas in the Bible (although I am no expert). My problem with this is that it makes Melkor the "fall guy" and condemns him to an existence of evil and terrible suffering without him having any choice (ie free will) in the matter. Which seems at odds with the portrayal of Eru's apporach to creation and with the idea of him as a just and good God.

alatar

03-16-2005, 01:04 PM

Hope. There is always the HOPE of salvation, the belief that a merciful God will forgive. The only person to whom heaven is totally and utterly denied is to he who utters rejects God. To all others, there is the hope of heaven, and the hope not ending up in Hell. This is the concept of divine mercy, which goes hand in hand with that of divine justice.

Agreed. Where do non-theists fit in (i.e. do not reject God as they do not think that there even is a god)?

After all, if only the truly unrepentant go to Hell, then surely only the great saints can be said to have come close to achieving Heaven. Here is where the Catholic dogma of Purgatory comes in. Purgatory is the place of PURGING, of cleansing the soul so that it is cleaned of sin and ready for Heaven.

Not to debate Christianity too much, but the concept of 'works' and 'purging' negate the need for Grace (and therefore the sacrifice of Christ).

No person will be condemned to Hell for not having had the opportunity to join the Church (primitives, people who never heard of it, unborn babies, people before Christ), nor will those who have tried to lead a good life according to what they know and/or believe (Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Proddies, atheists, etc... :p )

No offence is intended by the above, just a more or less blanket statement that Catholics believe that all people who try to lead a good life have a real hope of Heaven. Even Balrog-Wingers!

That's called 'univeralism.' Is that a Roman Catholic doctrine? I would contend that that's not found in the Christian Bible.

And what worse torture for Melkor! After fighting your whole life against Eru, Manwe etc, you now are forced to make nice and join every else in Paradise ("Sorry about the sister thing, Turin. Sorry about the sword thing at the Dagor Dagorath, Morgoth. <kisses and hugs>").

Anyway, I would have to say that Eru was not a universalist (if there is such a word) in that not all end up in Paradise. All may have the opportunity to go, yet free will allows for some not to go. Free will = choice. I've left the orcs out of all of this as we have yet to pin down the extent of their choices.

Orcs and other baddies go to the Void, and others go to some other afterlife. After Dagor Dagorath, not sure where all of the baddies will end up, but I'm sure that it won't be a party. Nonexistence?

Is the Dagor Dagorath the 'last chance to repent?' At that time can everyone elect to change sides, and after the big game, share the fate of the side of their choice? Would this pre-game time be when good-natured orcs ("he killed the villagers before he sat down to eat them - there's a mark in the plus column...") turn to Eru and by their choice are given some kind of redemption? Do they become Elves again?

Ainaserkewen

03-16-2005, 01:08 PM

alatar

03-16-2005, 01:14 PM

My point is that all this trouble in middle-earth and Melkor's upity-ness was started by singing.

It's the all the fault of 'Rock and Roll' again! ;)

davem

03-16-2005, 02:13 PM

My understanding is that as time wore on & the things predicted in the Music came more & more into being the Valar had less & less power to change things directly & were forced into being more & more 'passive. Hence, no direct intervention in the Third Age - they only comissioned the Istari. Added to this, the events of the Third Age are to usher in the time of the dominion of Men & the fading of the 'mythological' period. As to why Melkor's release was permitted, Osanwe Kenta goes into this (don't have it to hand at the moment) but I seem to recall that Manwe had set the time of his incarceration & so had to go along with what he had ordained, & had to give Melkor the chance of repentance which that incarceration was intended to offer. Manwe was,after all King of Arda, & for Eru to over rule him would have effectively humiliated him. So, Melkor's release & all taht followed from it was necessary,as Eru's intervention would not only have taken away Melkor's free will but Manwe's also.

Eru's intervention at the Sammath Naur is subtle, & the event may be seen as a fluke - Gollum simply overbalances - by those who wish to see it that way. So, the individuals - men basically - who will come to dominate the Fourth & subsequent ages, are granted even more 'freedom of choice' in that they don't have to believe in Eru at all. A blatant intervention would have taken that freedom away. So Eru intervenes subtly. Obviously a direct intervention by the Valar themselves in the form of an invasion force would not only have taken that freedom away it would also have increased the likelyhood of they themselves being taken for Gods & becoming objects of worship themselves by men -hence the likelihood of polytheism becoming the religion of Middle earth, rather than monotheism. What I mean is that Monotheism as an idea would have been less likely to arise at all.

As to Melkor, certainly Eru would have known the coices he would make & the effect those choices would have on Middle earth, but he wasn't created to rebel, merely with the capacity so to do - but so were all the other Ainur.

Of course, this opens up another can of worms - if Melkor hadn't rebelled, & thus created an alternative to Eru's divine plan, would one of the other Ainur have rebelled instead? What I mean is, Melkor's rebellion sets out an alternative & therefore introduces choice into the 'game'. At that point the Ainur have to decie whose wide they are on. If Melkor hadn't done that, would one of the other Ainur have started wondering about 'alternatives' & hence become 'Dark Lord' instead.

The Ring springs to mind here - if Sauron doesn't get it back & someone else claims it we end up with another Dark Lord. It seems, maybe, that there is a tendency for Dark Lords to be produced...

I do wonder where that 'tendency' originated...

drigel

03-16-2005, 03:58 PM

Melkor's rebellion sets out an alternative & therefore introduces choice into the 'game'.

I was beginning to wonder when this idea was going to be presented. Orc's being redempted, elves turning to evil... interesting tangents that lie outside of the music. It is mankinds fate to balance on the knife's edge every waking day of their life that choice. Melkor embodies or represents this to me. But there is no redemption for M - only the long wait for the Last Battle..

Maédhros

03-16-2005, 04:06 PM

Eru's intervention at the Sammath Naur is subtle, & the event may be seen as a fluke - Gollum simply overbalances - by those who wish to see it that way.
I would like to know how can you be so sure that it was Eru's intervention and not just mere luck.

Of course, this opens up another can of worms - if Melkor hadn't rebelled, & thus created an alternative to Eru's divine plan, would one of the other Ainur have rebelled instead? What I mean is, Melkor's rebellion sets out an alternative & therefore introduces choice into the 'game'. At that point the Ainur have to decie whose wide they are on. If Melkor hadn't done that, would one of the other Ainur have started wondering about 'alternatives' & hence become 'Dark Lord' instead.
I don't agree with this. How can anyone know that because Melkor rebelled that it was an alternative Eru's plan?
I see it in a different view than most. People tend to look at what Arda became as the way the Plan unfolded. I just think that that was only a process that eventually led to Arda Remade which was the true End or Arda so to speak.
If Melkor or another Ainur had rebelled or without any rebellion, I believe that in the End the Arda Remade in the Melkor intervention would have been the same as if other or no intervention, but the specific path into which it evolved would have changed entirely.
And did Melkor really rebelled?
Ilúvatar gave him the powers and the freedom to use them as he saw fit. It was his right to act as he saw fit, as where the other Ainur.

Formendacil

03-16-2005, 11:32 PM

Agreed. Where do non-theists fit in (i.e. do not reject God as they do not think that there even is a god)?

Not to debate Christianity too much, but the concept of 'works' and 'purging' negate the need for Grace (and therefore the sacrifice of Christ).

I would put non-theists with all others. A separate category for them is unnecessary.

That's called 'univeralism.' Is that a Roman Catholic doctrine? I would contend that that's not found in the Christian Bible.

And what worse torture for Melkor! After fighting your whole life against Eru, Manwe etc, you now are forced to make nice and join every else in Paradise ("Sorry about the sister thing, Turin. Sorry about the sword thing at the Dagor Dagorath, Morgoth. <kisses and hugs>").

I think you might be misinterpreting what I said. I did NOT say that everyone will get into Paradise, only that everyone has CHANCE. It is NOT Catholic dogma that everyone will kiss, make up, and go to heaven, but Catholic doctrine does not say that people will automatically be condemned to hellfire for having been born before Jesus, in an un-evangelised society, etc, etc. Nor will people who live in accordance with God's law as best they are able, such as non-Catholic believers (ie. Jews, Protestants, Muslims, et. al) see their efforts go to waste.

That said, ultimate judgement falls on God, as does the exercise of His mercy. I do not think that all will granted mercy, but the condemnation is greater on those who KNEW what was expected of them, and still did wrong.

Of course, this opens up another can of worms - if Melkor hadn't rebelled, & thus created an alternative to Eru's divine plan, would one of the other Ainur have rebelled instead? What I mean is, Melkor's rebellion sets out an alternative & therefore introduces choice into the 'game'. At that point the Ainur have to decie whose wide they are on. If Melkor hadn't done that, would one of the other Ainur have started wondering about 'alternatives' & hence become 'Dark Lord' instead.

I would have to say "No. It was not NECESSARY for Arda that one of the Ainur fall and become the Dark Lord."

Even had Iluvatar gone ahead and made Arda, and none of the Ainur had rebelled, there would still be free will for the Children of Iluvatar. There would still be rules that could be broken.

The exercise of free will would still be necessary to chose to obey divine law, or to reject it in favour of self-gratification. The difference is that there would be no mighty tempter, no Dark Lord whose goal was to spread evil. Therefore, evil would not be so prevalent in Arda as it was with Melkor, and it would not have had the same dominance over Man and Elf that it does.

The possibility of rejecting Eru and His laws would remain, but it would be a much less likely thing to happen, without someone pushing it, and corrupting the matter of Arda to proneness towards discord and chaos.

Remember, this is Arda MARRED, in Tolkien's own words. Therefore, that implies that there was, or was intended to be, an Arda UNmarred. Therefore, in Iluvatar's original plan, there should have been NO Dark Lord, thus if Melkor had not gone bad, it would not have been necessary for someone else to step up to the Dark Lord plate.

davem

03-17-2005, 08:38 AM

I would like to know how can you be so sure that it was Eru's intervention and not just mere luck.

You can't - that's the point. If you could know definitely one way or the other it would have a too deterministic effect on your freedom of belief.

And did Melkor really rebelled?
Ilúvatar gave him the powers and the freedom to use them as he saw fit. It was his right to act as he saw fit, as where the other Ainur.

No, it wasn't his right to act as he saw fit - certainly he had the ability to do as he saw fit, but being able to do something is not the same thing as having the right to do it. The Nazis were able to murder 6 million jews in the death camps, but I don't think anyone (in their right mind) would argue that they had a right to do it. He was created to serve. Any powers he had came from Eru & were given with the intention that he would use them in His service. Melkor misused his 'power'. Its like, if I let you use my car to take a sick friend to the hospital, & you dump the person by the roadside, sell the car & go on holiday with the proceeds. Being in possession of the car means you have the ability to do that, but you certainly wouldn't have the right to do it.

The possibility of rejecting Eru and His laws would remain, but it would be a much less likely thing to happen, without someone pushing it, and corrupting the matter of Arda to proneness towards discord and chaos.

You've sidetracked me into wondering whether, because there is no Me Bible or Quran, 'Good' & 'evil' have to manifest in rather 'extreme' forms so that they're quite plain & understandable to everyone. There seems to be something of an absence of theologians arguing over the minutiae of their subject in Me. People only have what's in their hearts, a kind of 'innate' understanding of what is 'Good' & what is 'evil' & their experience of good & evil in the world - ie no Ten Commandments, no clearly set out 'rules', no religious imperatives (accept Jesus as your personal saviour or Else!, accept Muhammad as the final prophet of God or Else!, etc etc)

What I mean is the inhabitants of Me have to come the 'Truth' through personal judgement based on their experiences, not by accepting or rejecting the 'word of God'.

This is pure speculation & has just occurred to me, so I'm not it makes complete sense...

alatar

03-17-2005, 09:49 AM

What I mean is the inhabitants of Me have to come the 'Truth' through personal judgement based on their experiences, not by accepting or rejecting the 'word of God'.

This is pure speculation & has just occurred to me, so I'm not it makes complete sense...

Makes sense to me, but you might want to get a second opinion as I may be nuts...

Anyway, regarding relevation: The elves had direct access to the 'divine,' and so they have no need for faith. Galadriel was in Valinor, so what are the chances that she may have doubts regarding the existence of Manwe et al? As far as she is concerned, the Valar are 'cousins.' She knows what will happen if she were to be slain, and also what awaited her when she took the last ship.

Orcs are basically smart animals - as we have not yet produced a valid argument that would allow for them to have free will - and so there is no need for revelation. As far we know, when orcs die they become worm food. No afterlife - nothing. There is the possibility that as they are on the 'evil' side that they may suffer some punishment after all is sung and done, but this is mere speculation.

Men (and Hobbits) are somewhere in the middle. In the past there has been revelation to certain individuals, and purportedly one man (Eärendil) made a sacrifice to redeem the world or something. The elves have provided information (second hand) yet estrangement has placed doubts. The Enemy also has muddied the waters regarding Eru, the other divines, etc.

During a golden age, men were much closer to the 'source,' yet this did not remove all doubts. As the island containing evidence regarding the same was drowned in a flood, information is scant and sketchy.

Also, for men the afterlife is uncertain. Even the elves, assuming that their information is correct, do not know what happens, though the oldest tales tell of man leaving the confines of Arda, something that the other races cannot do. Melkor has added fear to this information.

Due to past screw-ups wih the elves, the Valar avoid direct contact with men, and so any additional revelation is indirect and at times open to interpretation.

So it would seem that men, having no certain knowledge or revelation, are required to take leaps of faith. One can choose to be like the elves and believe that it's all true, or live like an orc, figuring that a worm's gullet is the final destination.

I assume that this was deliberate on JRRT's part.

The Saucepan Man

03-17-2005, 10:09 AM

Orcs are basically smart animals - as we have not yet produced a valid argument that would allow for them to have free will - and so there is no need for revelation.I would have thought that the behaviour exhibited by the likes of Shagrat, Gorbag, Ugluk, Azog and the Great Goblin, not to mention the existence of "quasi-independent" Orcish colonies and the development of an Orcish culture of sorts (songs, distinctive weaponry etc), provide a valid basis for arguing that they (or some of them at least) were higher than animals and had a degree of free will, whether or not one actually accepts that argument.

alatar

03-17-2005, 10:42 AM

I would have thought that the behaviour exhibited by the likes of Shagrat, Gorbag, Ugluk, Azog and the Great Goblin, not to mention the existence of "quasi-independent" Orcish colonies and the development of an Orcish culture of sorts (songs, distinctive weaponry etc), provide a valid basis for arguing that they (or some of them at least) were higher than animals and had a degree of free will, whether or not one actually accepts that argument.

I would say that they do have free will - with the exception of ever being able to choose 'good.' For my argument posted previously, I have them having already 'chosen,' and so they no longer feel the need to reconsider/repent. Still, orcs are a bit murky.

Elves would be more 'spiritual' and orcs more 'animal/physical.'

Formendacil

03-17-2005, 12:41 PM

You've sidetracked me into wondering whether, because there is no Me Bible or Quran, 'Good' & 'evil' have to manifest in rather 'extreme' forms so that they're quite plain & understandable to everyone. There seems to be something of an absence of theologians arguing over the minutiae of their subject in Me. People only have what's in their hearts, a kind of 'innate' understanding of what is 'Good' & what is 'evil' & their experience of good & evil in the world - ie no Ten Commandments, no clearly set out 'rules', no religious imperatives (accept Jesus as your personal saviour or Else!, accept Muhammad as the final prophet of God or Else!, etc etc)

I would say that, to a certain extent, Arda DOES have Bible/Quran of sorts: the Valar, in specific, Manwe and Mandos.

Think about what the Bible is to Christians: God's inspired words and laws, given to his prophets and apostles, put into written form.

Think about what the Quran is to Muslims: God's inspired words and laws, spoken to the Prophet Muhammed, put into written form.

God (Eru's) inspired words and laws in Arda do not need to be put into written form because there are living (and undying) receptacles of His words and laws, namely the Valar, especially Manwe and Mandos. Why write down what is contained, perfect, in a mind with speech?

The Elves, living in Valinor as those with the written word did, had no need. And once they came back to middle-earth and spread the tengwar, they were in rebellion, and not likely to write up the Gospels of Manwe and Mandos. This tendency then gets passed on to the Numenoreans, and all others who inherit the true knowledge of the Valar.

davem

03-18-2005, 03:47 AM

The elves had direct access to the 'divine,' and so they have no need for faith.... So it would seem that men, having no certain knowledge or revelation, are required to take leaps of faith. One can choose to be like the elves and believe that it's all true, or live like an orc, figuring that a worm's gullet is the final destination.

God (Eru's) inspired words and laws in Arda do not need to be put into written form because there are living (and undying) receptacles of His words and laws, namely the Valar, especially Manwe and Mandos. Why write down what is contained, perfect, in a mind with speech?

The Elves, living in Valinor as those with the written word did, had no need. And once they came back to middle-earth and spread the tengwar, they were in rebellion, and not likely to write up the Gospels of Manwe and Mandos. This tendency then gets passed on to the Numenoreans, and all others who inherit the true knowledge of the Valar.

But having direct knowlege of anything negates the need for faith - you don't need to have faith in known facts. I would argue that the Elves' direct knowlege of the Valar actually takes away their freedom of thought & perhaps even restricts their creative expression - why is there no Elvish fiction? (something I've asked before). Why don't they sub create 'secondary worlds'? Men, not having direct knowlege, can speculate on different possibilities, alternative realities, whereas Elves (the High Elves specifically) simply know the way things are. Perhaps this is what leads them to seek to 'embalm' rather than attempt to change the world around them. They know too much about the way things are & the way things were/are intended to be. They work to make the world conform to Eru's blueprint because they are actually limited by their nowlege. Men, on the other hand, not having direct access to such 'facts' are free to speculate on possibilities & examine all the options.

Of course, as Aragorn says, Men must judge as they always have - there is a sense of 'right' & 'wrong' which is innate to the Eruhini, but it is a sense in Men & is not so specific that it limits what they feel there is any point in doing. Both Men & Elves are attempting (if they are true to their own deep sense of right & wrong) to do the will of Eru, but Men are freer to think 'outside the box'& so may actually bring into being new things which, while not 'outside' the scope of the original Plan, were perhaps not specifically predicted by it.

I think this is perhaps the difference between Melkor & the Eruhini - the latter, for all their failings, are attempting to conform themselves to the will of Eru (again - when they do what they know is right), whereas Melkor was attempting to subvert & change the original plan. The Eruhini willed the Right whereas Melkor willed the 'wrong'. Both may have failed in many ways (the Eruhini causing suffering & destruction, Melkor, despite himself bringing about some good ), but they would be judged on their intent.

Again, just throwing out ideas as they occur - feel free to pull them apart...

The Saucepan Man

03-18-2005, 07:21 AM

But having direct knowlege of anything negates the need for faith - you don't need to have faith in known facts. Although even the High Elves had only indirect knowledge of Eru. They were one step removed, so the requirement for faith on their part was limited to trusting what the Valar told them of him. All other Elves, along with Men and the other races were two or more steps (many more in the Third Age in the case of all but some of the Elves) removed.

drigel

03-18-2005, 07:55 AM

Why don't they sub create 'secondary worlds'?

I would submit that Lorien would be considered a 'secondary world', created by Galadriel. Since, by the time of her coming to those woods, and the time hence, there is nothing like it in all of ME. Though it is a reflection, or memory, of an earlier unstained time, it is "something apart" from the rest of ME, and is (for lack of a better word) "removed" from the linear timeframe that those woods are surrounded by.

An expression of elvish 'faith', as it were....

davem

03-18-2005, 08:38 AM

I would submit that Lorien would be considered a 'secondary world', created by Galadriel. Since, by the time of her coming to those woods, and the time hence, there is nothing like it in all of ME. Though it is a reflection, or memory, of an earlier unstained time, it is "something apart" from the rest of ME, and is (for lack of a better word) "removed" from the linear timeframe that those woods are surrounded by.

It is a kind of 'secondary world' but not in the sense of, say, Middle earth (from our perspective),or the Star Wars universe - ie a 'fiction', an invention, a world that never existed which had been made up by an artist. As you say, Lorien was an attempt to recreate rather than sub-create.

Although even the High Elves had only indirect knowledge of Eru. They were one step removed, so the requirement for faith on their part was limited to trusting what the Valar told them of him.

Well, I'd say the High Elves had a choice between monotheism (if they believed what the Valar told them about Eru) or polytheism (if they didn't). They wouldn't have had the choice of atheism, as they were aware of the 'fact' of the existence of supernatural beings.

Maédhros

03-18-2005, 08:51 AM

You can't - that's the point. If you could know definitely one way or the other it would have a too deterministic effect on your freedom of belief.

But the point is that we cannot say that every action that turned out for the good of ME was a direct intervention of Eru. Gollum fell and that an intervention of Eru. Frodo had pity for Gollum and that was an intervention of Eru.

No, it wasn't his right to act as he saw fit - certainly he had the ability to do as he saw fit, but being able to do something is not the same thing as having the right to do it.
It is interesting but as I see it, the more Melkor acted as he saw fit, the more he wanted to make Arda his (in a way) in the End, he was making a greater Arda for Ilúvatar. So in the moment of his actions were not "good" but in the end, it turned out to be the best.

Morgoth

03-22-2005, 11:08 AM

Melkor= The quenya name for the great rebellious vala, the beginning of evil, in his orgin the mightiest of the ainur. afterwards named Morgoth,Bauglir,the dark lord,the enemy, etc. The meaning of melkor was "He who arises in might" ; the Sindarin form was Belegurth 'great death' after the rape of the silmarils he got the title of morgoth. Morgoth "the black enemy" name of melkor given to him by Feanor (during rape of silmarils)...

Noxomanus

01-04-2006, 06:07 PM

Call me literally the (ME) Devil's Advocate, but I think it was inevitable for a being as great,wise and powerful as Melkor,given so much initiative,capability and pride by its creator to have his own ideas.

I think that certainly before he Entered, Melkor was not evil or wrong in any way. Instead of blindly following what was dictated by Eru, Melkor used the gift of free will which was given to him,to think and act as he himself thought best. It is only natural for a child to rebel against authority,rules and parents (Father,in this case) when he can think and act on his own. To me, Melkor was as a teenager that did not neccesarily disagree with what Father says,but nevertheless sees room for improvement and is certain that Father sees certain things wrong.
And as any teenager, Melkor wanted to break free.

Melkor was, in my opinion, the only Vala to show a real free will. If Eru knew all, he must have seen this coming and I can not imagine a wise, in fact all-knowing, being as Eru not foreseeing that the greatest among his children would rebel.

I dare say that Eru was restrictive. He gave free will,yet seemed to expect all freewilled beings would still follow the rules as he set them. He gave free will, but no freedom. When comparing Eru,Melkor and Manwë to a father and his sons, Manwë would have been the rule-abider who was happy with the situation as it was and did not seek to find his own way. A being that follows only the will of another and does not think for itself,ends up limited. And this is what we see happen, Manwë can not understand evil (which is by its nature in Arda, 'something that goes against the will of Eru') and indeed Manwë could not understand this, because he himself had never done anything against Eru's will. He was limited and he was limited because he had allowed himself to be limited.

Melkor on the other hand, was the rebel of the two brothers. He sought to find his own way and as he did, he let the other Valar know what true free will was. Whereas the other Valar,in the Shaping of Arda, did not go against each other and followed the same plan, Melkor used his own free will to show the others there was more then just their will. As they raised mountains,he leveled them and so he made Arda different from what the others had in mind and in the end, he must have made it more varied and more marvelous and greater then it could have been with only one will dominating and directing the Shaping.

I dare say that it were those Maiar that had most free will of their own,that joined Melkor. They saw there was room to complement and add to what allready was.

Fall of Melkor

I think that Melkor only turned bad or 'bad' when he chose to try to dominate the Children and when he started breeding them into his own designs. He had been ordered to help the Children and to tutor them, not to rule them. He failed to see that he took away their free will by taking them under his wing and trying to make them into what he saw as something Better. As time progressed, he became more and more fixed into his ways untill no longer Acting By Free Choice and A Better Arda were his goals, but Obstruction and Arda Ruled By Melkor became.

I think it was the Coming of the Children was what truly kickstarted Melkors ways (and those of his Maiar) becoming wrong rather then alternative.

I still think Melkor was the only Vala ( I would not say Ainu) that really made use of the free will that was given to him by Eru.