Quote:
Originally Posted by Morthoron
It is paradoxical rather than oxymoronic, I should guess.
|
Well, yes, that's a better word.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morthoron
But knowing the actions that will take place is entirely different than interfering in the actions to change the outcome.
|
Sure. And there would be no need to interfere for an allmighty God, "seeing everything happen in His omnipresent Now" (quote from
WCH).
Gwathagor used the analogy of a novelist. You might say the novelist is outside of the timeline in his book. Reading his finished work, he knows everything that is going to happen, because he is the author of the story. If you look upon God and his creation this way you can talk about predestination, right? With this view however the characters aren't free to act inside of the story as they can only do only what the writer wrote, be that good or evil. In other words, they lack free will, and can not be held accountable for their actions - at least not fairly.
Fate you say (and that's a general you, not you Morth), is different, as it depends on free will. And free will is of course imperative for a story like LotR or for Christianity. Without free will no one is morally culpable, and chioces are just an illusion. So there must be free will, or Frodo wasn't brave at all, he merely did the only thing he could have done. But still you say that God, or Eru if you wish, can forsee all future events. I just can't make this out, I'm sorry. If Eru is able to forsee all future events, and hear the entire Music to the last note, there can be only one possible outcome. And with only one possible outcome, time is a straight line, just like in the metaforical novel above, and Frodo isn't brave, he is a mere puppet, albeit unknowingly. Why even get out of bed? What else can you do?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Galion quoting C.S.Lewis
8) In human language we use terms like "foreknowledge," and "foresaw," and "predestined." These terms are all locked into human reason and human language. We really don't have language to adequately deal with God's presence outside of time.
|
On first sight, this might be a valid argument. Ants, to use a blunt analogy, can never understand astrophysics as they don't have the intellectual capabilities required. How can we, being finite creatures, fully understand the designs of a limitless God? The answer of course is: no, we can't. But isn't that exactly what we are trying to do here? To assume knowledge of something (in this case, the statement that God sees everything is His omnipresent Now) that we, or in this instance
C.S. Lewis rather, in all likelyhood, are not able to understand by nature?
When reading Tolkiens works I detect a delicate balance between two views of the world; one being "everything's preordained", the other being "faith and responsibility lies in our own hands". In my mind, these two views can never be joined together. I really wonder what Tolkien thought of it.