Quote:
Originally Posted by tumhalad2
The "problem" the writer refers to is the disjunction between two moral systems, and the incompatability of Turin's life-story, which involves both his own bad choices and the whims of fate, and the universe of the Lord of the Rings, suffused with the presence of a supposedly benevolent creator god. If this god were truly all-knowing (omniscient), all loving (omnibenevolent) and "everywhere at once" (omnipresent) and all-powerful (omnipotent), then surely it follows logically that he would not allow suffering to occur.
|
The "problem" as inferred by said writer is nonsense. Again, Tumhalad, you are taking events out of context in an effort to serve your ongoing proposition, merely rewording your theories in every post you make, but nevertheless ending with the same central thesis. One would think, by your lack of intertextuality, that suffering of an individual only occurs with Turin in CoH, and not throughout Tolkien's entire corpus. Your continuing attempts to divorce Turin's fate from his bad choices and attempting to make them separate issues does not take into account the overall plot and overarching theme of the story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tumhalad2
This dilemma exists regardless of what Tolkien actually thought about fate and free will; it seems to me that he never really grappled with this issue with regards to his All-Father, Illuvatar. But he seems to have understood something of it at least implicity. Hence we have competing moral views in both LoTR and CoH, whatever their "intra-text" or "historical" associations. In CoH, Eru, as conceived in the Ainulindale, does not, or cannot, be said to exist. Were he omnipresent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent, he would possess the capability and desire to save Turin because he is
1. everywhere at once,
2. has an infinitely good will , and so would under no circumstances allow suffering to occur,
3. would know at all times Turin's whereabout and actions and
4. has no restrictions on his power.
Given these premises, Illuvatar could not logically allow Turin to suffer. That he does so (assuming he exists in Turin's universe) suggests that Illuvatar lacks one of these qualities altogether, and so is not, in fact, an all powerful, all loving god (and is therefore markedly different to the traditionally conceived Christian god). Of course, there are still problems for LoTR because suffering occurs within the framework of that tale as well. But the problem is more obvious and far more immediately present in CoH.
|
You are reading in a vacuum. How many Elves and Men suffered equal horrific fates in the First Age without the intervention of Eru? The answer is simple, but since you insist on ignoring "'intra-text' or 'historical' associations", it is never apparent to you, and you keep stumbling down the same blind path to an empty well.
Direct guardianship of Arda in the First Age is the sole dominion of the Valar; nowhere in the First Age does Eru interfere with their jurisdiction, whether implied or directly. Elves placed under the Doom of Mandos and those tribes of Men who followed the Noldor, suffer gravely. The plight of Arda is either heightened by the Valar's inaction, or relieved by their direct intercession -- not Eru. Hence, your entire proposition is flawed beyond recall, and should rightly be rejected out of hand. Eru does not become directly involved with matters on Middle-earth until the Valar surrender their jurisdiction to their creator, which is a momentous decision. Eru then destroys Numenor, but like Yahweh of the Old Testament, he allows Elendil and the Faithful to return to Middle-earth after the Great Flood.
In addition, Turin serves as the antithesis to Tuor, his cousin and direct contemporary (who is mentioned in CoH following a path in a different direction than the one Turin takes). Tuor listens and follows the dictates of the Valar (in this case, Ulmo) implicitly and never deviates from the role he has been given. Yet suffering on an epic scale occurs when Gondolin is destroyed because Turgon rejects Ulmo's direct intervention through Tuor. Yet Tuor's faithful service is rewarded, even if his divine message was rejected. Turin, on the other hand, rejects wise counsel (and in Melian's case, divine counsel) at several critical junctures during the exact same time period as Tuor, and he and his family suffer the direct consequences of his willful stubbornness and blind anger.