[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

It could be argued Morgoth's 'sin' was against his essential (Eru given) nature. Of course, it could also be argued that if he hadn't rebelled the story would have been a very short & very boring one. Morgoth may introduce 'evil' into the the world, but it also introduces rebellion, & introduces the possibility of defying Morgoth himself. If obedience to Eru doesn't involve being an integrated (ie whole) person the individual will remain conflicted & not know peace. Simply, if Morgoth hadn't defied Eru nothing would have happened of any interest to any reader. When Morgoth introduces his dissonance into the Music things start to happen, & the reader thinks 'Right, now its going to get interesting!' Its not simply that Morgoth's existence is necessary its that his rebelllion is necessary too - if only from the persepective of making the story interesting. Morgoth hurts, destroys, introduces cruelty, pain, heartbreak, offends, upsets & is generally a pain, but without him there would be nothing to struggle against, to challenge or be challenged by.

I have no disagreement with this. However, it is best to recognize that the dis-integration of Morgoth must be a result of the rebellion (which happens long before he messes with the Music) rather than the other way around. If the dis-integration occurred before the rebellion, the cause of the disintegration would have to be in the very creation of Morgoth, and therefore Eru to blame; but Tolkien does not write that; rather, he writes that it was Morgoth's choice to rebel. Seems like two different threads are beginning to merge into one debate. A pity; this had all the earmarks of having a more interesting and wider scope.

Originally Posted by davem

Morgoth is the Dionysian element that stops everything stagnating & being 'embalmed' in a state of 'perfection'. He is the Prometheus of M-e, who steals the fire (the Silmarils) from Heaven, & while he may not give them to Men, he makes it possible for Men to get hold of them - if they are willing to take the same risk he took to steal them in the first place.

"Embalmed" is hardly a fit description of pre-Arda creation. Tolkien's description of the unmarred Music uses an entirely different set of adjectives than "stagnating". Perhaps a re-reading is needed. To characterize Morgoth as Promethean is to deny everything written about him by Tolkien, and to misunderstand the legendarium fundamentally. Morgoth, as Tolkien states, has more in common with the Hebrew Lucifer.

Originally Posted by davem

Because of Morgoth the Light of Paradise enters into M-e (& remains there, in the Air (bound to the brow of Earendel) in the Earth & in the Sea). As I said, Morgoth's rebellion is necessary, & therefore inevitable. He serves his purpose at the most terrible cost to himself - inner fragmentation & exile in the Void.

Based on this understanding, Morgoth must therefore be the one to be honored as the creator of all good and glory, etc. Obviously this is not the case. Rather, this is another example of a eucatastrophe, an unforeseen (amazing) grace brought about against all odds, and certainly against Morgoth's calculations. One must wonder what kind of thinking is at the back of attributing goodness and self-sacrificing nobility to Morgoth?

Originally Posted by davem

To deny all possibility of return & reconciliation to him seems morally 'iffy' to say the least....

Since Tolkien does write Morgoth's exile into the Void into the story, why does this occur? What would be the results of this not happening?

As to the assertion that the (3) point from post #34 is orthodox Christian, it was meant to simply follow logic. Where logic leads, used rightly, is simply logical. What else it may also lead to, must therefore also be logical.

If one is speculating, then it would be best to call it speculation rather than stating a thing as if it must be so.

Originally Posted by davem

As long as we acknowledge that our beliefs are unfounded - if we could 'prove' them then we wouldn't need to 'believe' them - & are prepared to give up, or alter, our beliefs if they do not stand up to scrutiny - or accept at the least that other beliefs may be correct & our own incorrect.

This is assertion. No beliefs are "unfounded", unless the believer is delusional, which is to say 'out of touch with reality'. One person may believe that the other is indeed delusional, but that is beside the point. The point is valid that if one could prove beliefs, they would not be beliefs, but facts. But that is different from saying that beliefs are "unfounded". They can be founded upon logic and experience, but still be unproven. As to accepting that other beliefs may be correct and one's own incorrect, this is valid; however, paradigmatic beliefs may be so at odds that such proofs would be rendered unacceptable because one debater insists that another debater simply does not, or cannot, perceive the realities the first debater perceives. In other words, Person A might be quite 100% correct, and Person B might be 97% correct, and unable to accept the final 3% because the basis for the 97% correct is not an appropriate basis, and in fact makes it impossible for Person B to even perceive the final 3%.