[alatar]

Thanks all for the great feedback!

Originally Posted by Formendacil

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?

Originally Posted by Formendacil

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 ).

Originally Posted by Formendacil

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.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

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?

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

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...

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

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?

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

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?

Originally Posted by davem

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.

Originally Posted by davem

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! )

Originally Posted by davem

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.