Nebulous "It" and Absolutes

[Imladris]

But Frodo is hardly allowed to make a free choice & is told by both Gandalf & Elrond that he is meant to have the Ring, & that the task is appointed for him & if he doesn't find a way, no-one will (shall we translate: 'if you don't succeed in detroying this Ring we'll all be killed or enslaved, & it will be all your fault'.?)

I wouldn't say that. What I think Galadriel is that the only person who had a chance of doing it was Frodo. Everybody else was either too foolish (eg, Merry and Pippin) or had too much power that could easily be enslaved to the ring (eg, Gandalf). I believe I read in another thread once was that they knew he would fail...how could he not? They knew he was "human" and had his faults. They knew there was not much hope. Why would they blame him for that?

Of course he suffered wrong. But this is an imperfect world. No one would have suffered at all if Melkor hadn't gotten on his high horse and corrupted Middle-earth. As hard as it is to accept, this is the way that Middle-earth and our world works. It's unfortunate, but it's the hard truth. There is suffering in this world, and none of it is fair. But what can be more beautiful than a few soldiers giving up their life, their happiness, for the good of the human race? It's called self-sacrifice. Would you rather have Middle-Earth suffer under Sauron because what would happen to Frodo would be wrong? Would you rather have Sauron king of Middle-earth because what would happen to Frodo would be unfair?

[davem]

Firefoot, we seem to be saying the same thing. What happens to Frodo is wrong - everyone in the story seems to know that - Sam certainly does - his last words to Frodo show him struggling to accept the wrongness of his fate. The world is wrong, & what happens to Frodo is wrong. It is the 'way things are in the world' & has to be lived with, but it must still be acknowledged as 'wrong'.

To stray into a 'dangerous' area - Christ comes to die, to save the world. If he hadn't died on the Cross, if he'd lived a quiet life as a carpenter, got married, had kids, grown old & died peacefully in his sleep, that would have been a 'good' life for him. But no salvation, no hope beyond the world, everything would just have carried on in the same old messed up way. So, he had to die, as he did. But still, when we look at, think about him hanging there, being tortured to death, our instinctual response is that's its wrong, that it should not be happening. Intelectually & theologically we might understand why it happened & even be thankful for it, but on a gut level we what see is the 'wrongness' of the world symbolised in that one event.

Now, back to the 'plot

Moral choices are not made in a vacuum, & Frodo is put in a postion of having to take up the responsibility laid on him, or end up feeling a worse failure than he does in the end anyway. He is manouvered, by Eru, among others (Gandalf tells him he was meant to have the Ring - & not by its maker). And ultimate responsibility lies with Eru, not with Morgoth or Sauron, because Eru states that none may alter the Music in his despite.

So, does Eru have any 'moral' responsibility for his 'intentions', for what happens to individuals as a result of the changes He does or does not allow? Surely He must, if he can demand that of the inhabitants of Arda? Can Eru be held to account? Would He also require, perhaps, forgiveness from his creatures?

And please remember, none of this is to question God in this world - (though Jung seems to ask these questions about God in his 'Answer to Job'). Eru is a character in a story, God of Arda, not of this universe & we can analyse his behavour with just as much right as we analyse that of Frodo or Sauron.

[Dininziliel]

Davem,

I think if Eru/God/Love/The Universe could be held accountable for doing wrong, and thus eligible to be sued for pardon, Jesus would have come down from the cross, else he was a most insane fanatic. On a lesser scale, there could have been no LotR.

It is a matter of acceptance, pure & simple. This is not the limited level of "that's all right then."

The journey from thinking God responsible for the wrongness in life to acceptance of God's will is pretty much what LotR is all about. Tolkien repeatedly explained that its central theme was Death vs. Immortality: Men's acceptance of death, the Elves' acceptance of the "long defeat", and the consequences of attempting to usurp Eru's/God's place with the intention of altering these fates--death being the most historically perceived "wrong" thanks to the skillful wielding of fear. If we kept faith & behaved as we were created, we would not be having this discussion; instead, we chose to believe illusions which fatten on our fear and make the world most of us experience.

The ones worthy to be forgiven are the people you see, talk to, sit next to, write to, read the writings of, think of, and are one of. It is because of our own free will that the world is a cruel, harsh, and most unfair place. IMHO, this is precisely why Tolkien made the whole story pivot on pity & mercy. This was certainly Frodo's journey, and though at the end he may have been irreparably scarred, he was not bitter, nor did he say, "If only I'd known," or "I wish it had never happened," or even "I wish it had not happened to me." It was because of his pity--an inherent part of acceptance--that he could be healed. He may have failed at Doom, but he completed the larger journey. And so can we all.

[davem]

Dininziliel

I can see all your points, & from the perspective of faith, they are correct. But faith, as Tolkien stated, is trust, Hope without guarantees. It is faith that God, loving us & desiring our happiness, but also our spiritual growth - well, growth into our full humanity - will make all things well in the end.

Tolkien, in LotR, has Frodo, after the destruction of the Ring tell Sam 'Its like things are in the world, hopes fail, an end comes. And from the perspective of our life here, in the world, that is a fact. Its not the only fact - there is love, joy, here in the world. But it ends in death. as for there being anything beyond the circles of the world, we only have faith. So we can read LotR from a 'materialist'/athiest perspective, & we find it the story of an individual who is broken & dies as a result (going into the 'west' was always symbolic of dying in celtic myth). Hence is it inspires only a sense of the cruelty of fate & the deep 'wrongness' of the world. The only sense of joy that comes is joy beyond the walls of the world - he does not achieve happiness in this world. His 'spiritual growth brings sadness, resignation to the inevitability of suffering, evil & death (at least within Arda Marred) & desire to leave the world.

So, Tolkien is saying our true happiness (not only our ultimate destiny) is to be found only 'elsewhere'.

Quote. If we kept faith & behaved as we were created, we would not be having this discussion;

But this is exactly what Frodo does - to the fullest extent that he can - & he still suffers terribly, is broken, & 'dies' ( ok, dies to the world) & it is not a 'willing' death - one can will the sacrifice of ones life, but one does not will the death that comes as a consequence - does that make sense?

It seems to me that Tolkien is precisely not saying that if we lived as God willed we would be happy in this world. He is saying the opposite - this is Arda Marred, & whether we live according to Eru's will or not, we will suffer, because suffering is part of it - it is simply 'like things are in the world'.

But here we must perhaps separate ME from this world - the Bible tells us that we (as decendants of our 'primal parents') are responsible for the Fall, & must be redeemed. We have brought our sufferings on ourselves. In ME, Arda was marred before it was even given material form. Melkor spoiled it & introduced evil & contention into the blueprint - but Eru then chose, knowing the suffering that would result for all those, Elves, Men, Dwarves, Hobbits who would be born into it. God creates a perfect world which then 'falls' as a result of human free will & defiance. Eru creates a world which has corruption & evil already present in it from before its creation. So, while we cannot hold God accountable for suffering & evil in this world, we can at least question whether Eru bears any responsibility for the wrongness in ME.

[symestreem]

Premise:
Eru acts in good ways.

Assumption:
Eru is good.

Assumption:
He wants good for people.

Assumption:
Being omnipotent, he chose the best possible course for the universe.

Assumption:
Something worse would have happened if he'd done otherwise.

Assumption:
He can't be blamed for the bad stuff.

[davem]

Well, Eru, is not 'God' in this world. Eru doesn't create a 'good' world. Eru propounds a 'good' theme to the Ainur, which Melkor attempts to corrupt. Eru combats this. Melkor fights back, etc.

The Music reaches a certain point, Eru calls a halt, & then creates Arda, based on the Music - not his original 'good' concept of Arda, but from the Music which contains Melkor's theme(s).

So, from the point Arda comes into being, it is 'Marred'. So, Arda has never been 'Unmarred'. As I said Arda was never 'good'. Hence, apart from the original form it had in the mind of Eru at the first propounding of the original theme. So Eru atually creates Arda Marred, which is His choice - accepting that He did not introduce the Marring. He creates Arda Marred, knowing it is Marred, knowing that suffering must be the lot of those who will inhabit it.

So the question arises, why? Is it because He has some sense, or has come to some realisation, that in creating the Ainur, some of whom, in being seduced by Melkor, are 'flawed', or prone to being flawed/seduced by pride/evil that he is not a very 'good' creator - that the potental for creating 'flawed' or Marred beings exists within Him, & has to be worked out in a physical 'arena'?

God creates a good world, which is then Marred by 'our' fall. Eru creates an already fallen world. Eden (literally or metaphorically - depending on how fundamentalist one's interpretation of Genesis is) existed. Perfection was, it existed as a 'fact', whereas Arda Unmarred only ever existed as a possibility, an idea, in the mind of Eru, & was corrupted by Melkor before it was made.

We have thus two completely different concepts of Deity. In this world, because Eden once existed as a 'fact', it is shown to be possible. Arda Unmarrred can only be a 'hope' for the inhabitants of ME, because, beyond the original idea, it never existed physically.

So, if Eru intentionally creates a fallen world, is He not responsible for that choice? The Fall of Adam & Eve was optional - they didn't have to choose a fallen world for themselves & their decendents - so, the 'choice' of living in a fallen or unfallen world was made by those who will live in it. In Arda the choice is imposed by Eru, & the Children are born into a world already fallen, & have no choice in the matter. In this world, we struggle to make the best of our fall, which we bear responsibility for. In Arda the inhabitants live in a fallen world which fell before they came into being. Hence they never get the choice to live in an unfallen/un Marred Arda. All their choices are made in a fallen world, in response to its fallen state.

Of course, in the later writings, Tolkien seems to move away from this concept, plays it down. Men are shown to have 'chosen' to follow Melkor. But it is still not the Biblical account mythologised. Tolkien seems to be attempting to move the responsibility from Eru to Elves & Men, but the original choice of whether to create Arda according to His original theme, or according to the latest form of the Music, corrupted by Melkor lies ultimately with Eru.

If we then move to Frodo, & whether his suffering is essentially 'wrong', it all hinges on the existence or otherwise of a spiritual dimension. Put the spiritual/religious aspect on one side for a moment. What we have is the story of someone who by fate, or intent, is destroyed in his attempt to help others. He does the right thing & is broken by it, ends feeling a failure, sad, hopeless, & with his life ebbing away. The journey into the west would be symbolic of death. Deep feeling of 'wrongness', unfairness. Especially because even those he saves will also just die, & those they care about will just die, & all our hopes & dreams are lost (Atheism - we can choose that & resign ourselves to it - I remember reading an about an ancient Epicurean?? tomb inscription 'I was not. I have been. I am not. I do not mind' - or we can accept it & fall into despair about it, or just not think about it.)

Second option: Faith. Frodo does go through all that, but it is the Will of Eru. Frodo's sacrifice is not in vain. All he suffers is for some greater good, There is something beyond the circles of the World, some hope & happiness. But if we look at Frodo's final state from that perspective, do we feel its ok that he ended up as he did? Is there not some sense that it is wrong? Is there no sense that Eru is in any way responsible & to be held accountable?

If we were speaking of this world, there wouldn't be, because God made this world perfect - He saw that it was Good - so it was His intent that it should be Good, & that suufering shouldn't exist in this world - God cannot be criticised for this world's fall. But Eru, on the other hand, deliberately creates a fallen world, to 'show the Ainur what they have done'. Eru creates the world knowing Frodo will be broken, because he has created Arda knowing that Sauron will create the Ring, & that it will have to be destroyed. Christ is putting right something that shouldn't have gone wrong, because the Fall was not intended (even if known by God, He didn't choose it to happen. Eru, on the other hand, not only knows, but chooses to create Arda already Marred, & waiting for that Marring to manifest.

So, we can question Eru's motives, & responsibility, because they are different from God's.

And I think I've now inflicted enough theology on my poor readers for the present

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Be careful, davem, these are dark waters!

The argument of whether Eru = God has been debated for a long time,

I agree with you, davem, on many aspects,

I think that we can look at it this way;
Eru created the Ainor in Good intension, he listened to the first music and "It was good" Therefore his original plan for the earth was one of good, as shown in the first theme. But it was the discord of Melkor that is to blame for the eventuality of Evil in the world. Eru perhaps planed form the beginning to allow the Ainor to see their music, and gave them their free will to do with it what they would. Then there is the argument that He Knew that Melkor would arise in evil and change them music and yet still allowed it to happen. But then there is still the fact that he had the original plan of a perfect world as seen in the first theme. The fact that Frodo was left 'broken' at the end can be traced back to the discord of Melkor, without which, the world would be perfect still, there would still be the lamps, there would be no Melkor, no Sauron, no Ring, no lord of the rings, and no barrow downs discussion forums! (Dramatic music would be appropriate)

For arguments sake, lets assume Tolkien created Eru as a representation of God, How can we as mortals hope to understand the mind of a divine being? For we can say "God knows all that is and was and is to come yes? So he knew the devil would rebel and cause hurt to the world, so why would he create him?" Then if he left the world without evil there would be little hope for us as humans to have free will to chose between good and evil! Perhaps that is the same thing in the case of Eru in Tolkien’s world.

I think the point is, that Evil is essential to life. Without it we will not have free will to choose, and so Melkor, The devil and such are around to give us the choice of good or evil. As both in the Bible and in Tolkien's writing the evil is ultimately destroyed in battle, (aka, Armageddon and the Dagor Dargoth). SO we can see that Eru and God had the original intention of a perfect world, but knew that without evil, there would be no freedom for their children, but ultimately they will be rewarded for enduring evil after the final battle.

[littlemanpoet]

Child:

When a person is totally immersed in despair, they are incapable of appreciating either goodness or beauty. The fact that Frodo could look on those shores and sense their underlying purity suggests that something in him was still capable of responding to goodness.

No. I must disagree that despair removes one's ability to appreciate goodness or beauty. I speak from personal experience. This simply does not ring true. It is quite possible for Frodo to be in the midst of despair, the world seeming grey to him, and the present goodness and beauty around him not touching him, because it cannot reach past the despair; but other beauty and goodness can reach him; it simply cannot be found where he had always looked before. There is Frodo's Elvish nature, which, because the 3rd age has died, no longer can find fulfillment in Middle Earth.

Davem:

If we accept the 'conceit' behind LotR - it was written by the Hobbits involved - then who exactly wrote the account of Frodo's arrival at the Undying Lands? Sam did.

In this case, the conceit doesn't work. At this point we have omniscient narrator. Not Sam. I really don't think that the conceit does work. (hmmm.... has there ever been a thread about this?) Whereas the conceit serves it purpose as a means of adding to the historical feel of the story, by this point in the story, the conceit is no longer needed, nor affecting the reader. If the reader has stayed with it as far as Frodo's journey across the Sea, the story itself, and all that has transpired, is enough to move the reader, and does so, obviously.

Davem:

I can't see Frodo thinking 'Whoo, yeah! I'll have some of that! Where do I sign up?'

Firefoot:

Frodo could not have known what he would go through when he volunteered to take the Ring in Rivendell.

But Frodo did, at the Council of Elrond, have a notion of what was going to be required when he volunteered to take the Ring; he knew then that it was a sacrificial quest, and likely would end in his own death. He had already experienced the Morgul Blade, and been changed by it. Think of Gandalf's thoughts as he watches Frodo: "to the wizard's eye there was a faint change, just a hint as it were of transparency, about him, and especially about the left hand that lay outside upon the coverlet." And Frodo "signed on". Why would anyone do such a thing? Would you? Would I? The answer is that indeed, some of us, many of us, would. Why? Because we weigh the thing out as did one high priest a couple thousands of years ago: the sacrifice of one is worth the saving of many - even if that one is myself.

Firefoot:

I believe Frodo had hope - not for himself, but for the whole of Middle-earth.

Precisely.

Child:

One of the things that strikes me is how generally moral the Hobbits are, a morality based on instinct rather than formal belief.

It's not really based on instinct. Tolkien's Hobbits are strongly based on pre World War One English society, the culture of which was deeply rooted in Western Christianity. Those underpinnings remain among Tolkien's Shire, even if they have been unmoored from their initial context. This is proven all the more by the familiarity between the Hobbits and the Rohirrim, by which Tokien essentially evokes a time travel within his novel from 19th century England to Anglo-Saxon England of 1000 years previous. In other words, the Hobbits travel back in time as they travel south toward Rohan, Gondor, and Mordor. All of which is to say that the Hobbits' morality is basically God-fearing, even if the text does not say so, per sé.

At the beginning of the story, even, Frodo is different than the other Hobbits, which is in part why Bilbo chose him as his heir. Even here, I suppose, Frodo didn't have a choice. Bilbo made it for him, to be the heir of the Ring. As Child said, davem, when it comes right down to it, none of us has a whole lot of choice in much of anything, only sometimes between the worse, and the lesser, of two evils. Such is fallen/flawed life. And it hurts. Heh. Reminds me of an aphorism I made up for myself: "The essence of humanity is not in the exercise of free will but in the nuanced expression of suffering." Ouch! But I guess I still believe it, two years later.

Dininziliel:

Is it possible to have the opposite outcome where "all is light and full of joy"?

I believe that is is possible. Notice the quote in my sig. It's the essence of being human, I think: "You will be healed in such a way that the harm done to you, and the suffering you endure, will become the stuff of your healing." How this happens, I don't know. Does it happen in LotR? It's hard to say. Does it happen in real life? Absolutely. Thus, it seems to me, that light and joy take up into itself all the darkness and horror and suffering, and transform it into something new. How? It depends on what you believe, I suppose, and it's a little bit what this season is about for some of us.

Well, I haven't waded through the entire thread, but I'm getting long winded here, so I'll post up and be quiet for a bit.

"May your song always be sung." -Bob Dylan

LMP

[davem]

Hookbill & Firefoot,

Eru creates a flawed world - out of his own free will (& being 'God' - within ME - He is the only being who truoly has free will). It is not a world which, like this one according to the Bible, was created perfect & then fell. It is pre-fallen. So, while man's 'fall' in this world was a possibility, it was not inevitable. In ME 'falls' are effectively inevitable, because Melkor's influence is written into the blueprint.

Of course, Eru has stated that none may change the Music in His despite - so we come to te conclusion that He accepted Melkor's input. So Eru, in full knowledge, makes a world in which, because of its nature, falls are more or less inevitable, or at least incredibly difficult to avoid.

The fact that God knew of the fall of man is not the point. He knew it would happen, but that isn't the same as causing it to happen. god created a good world, in which there was no evil in either the planning or in the making. Eru creates in full knowledge, a world was, or had become, flawed in the planning stage. He knows all things predicted in the Music will come about, because He has created the world in such a way that they must come about - because 'none' may change the Music in His despite.

So, He is responsible. In choosing Frodo to carry the Ring, He is responsible for what happens to him. In this world Christ comes to save us from our sins through his death. But in ME Eru's incarnation (as predicted in the Athrabeth) & subsequent death, would be about putting right the Flaws he had deliberately allowed in His own creation. The first is God putting right our 'wrong', the second is Eru putting right his own.

LMP - long time no hear!

As to the 'conceit' of LotR, for me it still applies, & makes the ending more beautiful & moving - no, we don't have final confirmation that Frodo comes safe to the Undying Lands & the healing he needs - but we have Sam's hope for him. And this is a story about Hope, without guarantees. It leaves us feeling that it should be true - & this is what inspires hope, faith, & trust. What inspires in the Christian story is a deep sense that it should be true, it ought to be like that - & that, not all the textual or archaeological 'evidence' is what first connects with people. Not the 'wrongness' - which that kind of death also inspires - we always feel that cruelty & death is 'wrong', & that 'someone' must be held accountable. But there is a sense that because of that event something is now put right that wasn't right before. In this sense, the 'conceit' of LotR works, even at the end. Our emotional connection is stronger because we don't really know what happened - we have Sam's hope that it will all work out for the best. A simple faith, not a stated 'fact', dead as a doornail.

As to Frodo's willing acceptance of the burden - yes, he did - at least he accepted it in stages. What he could not accept or agree to is what he would become, how he would end up. So, can we say he 'brought his final condition on himself, because he agreed to take the Ring? If we can't say that, then can we hold anyone or anything else responsible - Eru, who made Arda Flawed, & will allow none to change the Music in his despite - or 'the way things are in the world' (which again brings us back to Eru, because 'the way things are in the world is down to Him).

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Davem, I bring you back to what I said earlier.

In my opinion, Tolkien is trying to make the point that for us to have free will, there must be flaws in the world. Whether they come through Men's fall or through deliberate Creation of Flaws. Without Evil, we cannot make the choice to do what we will.

But still, ultimately the flaws are made up for and all get what they deserve, whether that be to live in bliss with God / Eru, or to suffer eternally. The choice is left to the peoples of M-E, that is why Eru created the flaws, but yet still makes up for them in the end.

That, I think, is the essence of Christianity, if the world was without flaw, we would all Love God from the moment we were born and it would not be anything special. God Loves us from before we were born, that is something special. But if we are given the choice to Love God or not to, then if ones choose to Love God then that connection becomes more intimate and special to the person.

So, I believe that Eru was making the flaws to give the people a choice, To have a special relationship with him, or not to, thus they were the most free of all races on M-E.

It is for that reason that I do not consider Christianity to be a religion, because the word religion suggests simply following a set of rules for life, where as in Christianity it is more based on having a loving and personal relationship with God. So we can guess that as Tolkien was a Christian, he will have wanted to get this message across to people.

[Firefoot]

Davem,

To say that Eru was responsible for the creation of an imperfect world and on a smaller scope, Frodo's suffering, would be to say that Eru 'sinned' and therefore was not perfect and incapable of creating a perfect world. Arda would have been perfect, had it not been for the discord of Melkor, and so Eru would be capable of creating a perfect world. There are two ways to go from this: either Eru fell as well, and sinned, becoming imperfect, or rather than causing the world to be imperfect, he allowed it to be imperfect because of the Music. In the Music, Eru allowed them free will. To draw a parallel: God does not cause suffering. He allows people to suffer, but he also uses the suffering for good.

"And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme can be played that does not have its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite."

I interpret this a little bit differently. I take this to mean that though others (Melkor) can try to change the Music to evil and use it for evil, Eru is good and since all the Music comes from Eru it will be used for good. No one can change the Music to utter evil, though bad things would come of it (i.e. sin, suffering) and the world would no longer be perfect. So rather than causing Arda to be marred, he allowed it to be marred. Eru was working for the good of the universe, and though he would allow the evil he would make good things come of it. In the same way, I would say that he allowed Frodo to suffer, because there would be something better for Frodo at the end. Does this make it right that Frodo suffers? No, it can't be right because suffering is a result of sin, the Discord. However, Eru allowed it that some higher purpose could be accomplished through him. The Discord was not caused by him, nor was the suffering. He allowed it, because in the Music, he gave the Ainur free will.

ye shall show forth your powers in adorning this theme, each with his own thoughts and devices, if he will.

You said that only Eru truly had free will; to me it seems that in the making of the Music, the Ainur also had free will, because if Eru interfered and didn't allow the discord, they would not have free will. The Music could not be altered, but in the making of the Music there was nothing set in how it would go other than Eru's intentions, which was that it would be good, to create a perfect world.

Hookbill (Do you prefer Hookbill or Goomba?),

I disagree that there had to be flaws for there to be free will. You would still be choosing to be perfect; that was what the fall of man was. They chose not to be perfect. They were perfect, but they had the choice not to be, and they took that choice. Just because the world is perfect, does not mean that there is still not the choice of evil. The world is then no longer perfect, and the choice for evil becomes more common.

This final point in my post is going a bit off topic, I hope everyone forgives me for this. That is what you said about Christianity not being a religion. Just because it is not like other world religions doesn't mean it isn't one. A religion is defined as

1 the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. 2 a particular system of faith and worship. 3 a pursuit or interest followed with devotion.

Christianity meets all of these definitions. One of the beliefs of a Christian is that we are not perfect; which is why as you point out it is not just following a set of rules, because as sinners it is impossible to follow the rules, which is why redemption is necessary.

[davem]

But in creating Arda already flawed by incorporating Melkor's themes Eru increases the likelihood that the Children will choose evil - its more likely you will fall on uneven, unstable ground than on level, solid ground. So, by incorporating Melkor's themes He takes away complete freedom from the Children. Evil is already inherent in Arda from its making. This is why within Arda no-one has true free will, because circumstances, including innate evil in the matter of Arda, will affect their choices.

When you say Eru would allow evil to come into the making & to exist, you state that He has a choice in that. Is He then responsible for His choices? He is not forced to allow evil into the Music, or into the making. And the idea that He allows it in order to bring about ultimate good is simply to say that the End justifies the means - anything is acceptable if the end result is 'good'. But is that the case? Isn't it actually the case that the end is a result, a direct consequence, of the means employed?

The question still remains - If Eru, motivated by a desire to bring about the Good, (& even if He knew that it was the only way to achieve the Good), allows Evil into existence, is He not responsible for the suffering that results along the way to the good? Does Eru's desired end absolve Him of all the suffering His children go through in bringing it about? Eru Himself does not suffer. In Christianity God does suffer through His incarnation & death, but that is for a different reason. Christ suffers to save us from a fate we have brought on ourselves. If Eru incarnates & suffers it would be only 'just' - why should He be the only one who doesn't suffer as a consequence of His choices?

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Hookbill will do nicely Firefoot.

I would like to again put forward the argument that with the deliberate inclusion of Evil in the world it makes The chosen relationship with God/Iluvatar that more intimate and special. Without Evil we would not think that Knowing God was anything special.

But in creating Arda already flawed by incorporating Melkor's themes Eru increases the likelihood that the Children will choose evil - its more likely you will fall on uneven, unstable ground than on level, solid ground. So, by incorporating Melkor's themes He takes away complete freedom from the Children. Evil is already inherent in Arda from its making. This is why within Arda no-one has true free will, because circumstances, including innate evil in the matter of Arda, will affect their choices.

Iluvatar would not let Evil ultimately take over the world, he can't, if evil began to gain ruler ship he would intervene, but there will always be good in the world, and there will always be Evil. Without the evil present we cannot chose to be evil or not to be. as you said, davem, because of circumstances, Free will is taken away, this is where i do not agree, within the circumstances people have the choice to do what they will in those circumstances. But i see how you can think that some ones upbringing can affect their choices in later life, however the choices still remain to follow what you have been taught or to go on another path. Which is why there is hope for all people on the earth, as all people have the choice to stop following the path of evil and go onto the road to salvation.