Nebulous "It" and Absolutes

[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.

[davem]

Only time for a short response:

Well, there's a difference between allowing the possibility of evil, & allowing the presence of evil. Eru, as you say, must allow for the former, but the latter is not necessary.

Eru creates Arda with the 'presence' of evil inherent within it, not just the 'possibility' of it.

[Lyta_Underhill]

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.

This contrast is interesting, and I bow down before your ability to clarify this basic underpinning of the two worlds, davem! This should go in an FAQ somewhere! However, I do get odd notions from the contrast as well. (Being not versed in theology or in the finer labels of philosophical theory, I must relegate my insights to "notions.")

First, having God know of but not influence the fall of man seems to separate Him from us in a fundamental way, distancing the Creator from the created, putting us alone into a universe that you might argue has been marred by our own actions. Thus, it suggests that theory that God set the universe in motion and allowed it to take its course by means of physical laws and "free will," that any intervention would be from outside, by a force greater than us and also alien to us. In a way, it can lead to as much despair as a view where the Creator builds His music into us and our sufferings are pre-ordained. If you ascribe to God a separateness from Man and thus a lack of connection between Him and us, it might suggest that he does not control the outcome of His creation but can only reach a hand in every now and then to correct his "experiment."

The Eru hypothesis would suggest that He knows it all, and that the sufferings of men and our hero Frodo are part of the larger Music. In a way, this view gives me more hope than the bleak idea that we bring our suffering upon ourselves, by our own choices of evil. If you accept as axiomatic that men are flawed and susceptible to evil, then a man "falling" to evil in our universe is like a man devouring himself, becoming, in effect, evil himself. Frodo's fall, however, is inevitable, and, however much it makes him suffer, it is a direct connection to the universe and to the Music. It puts Frodo in the position of fighting the Long Defeat directly and in a key way, rather than stumbling through and suffering for nothing. I don't think this takes ALL of Frodo's free will from him, though, as he is free to abandon the quest at any point but chooses not to do so. This bespeaks an inner strength, and in my opinion, is not inevitable, but directly willed. In a sense, Frodo IS the Music, rather than being a puppet of Eru.

I am not sure I have explained this properly and I am running out of time, so hopefully it is clear enough.

Second point: The fundamental difference davem points out givs me the same feeling I got when looking at the plain wood back walls of the Pirates of the Caribbean ride at Disneyworld one year, when I performed with a marching band at the opening of Epcot Center (yes, I'm that old!). The walls and concrete sidewalk were so bleak and unlike my childhood experiences on the ride itself that, even though I know it to be a construct, the seeing of it destroys the illusion on another level, and now Pirates of the Caribbean is an even cheesier memory! (Not that I'd give up the odd experience of seeing the back end of a pirate realm!)

In a way, this rings with the idea of sub creation, the limitations of Man in the arena of the divine. No matter how he struggles to paint a complete picture, there is always something that he must consider on man's level and not God's/Eru's . Eru is a reflection, a sub-creation, but the mysteries and questions raised by both are fundamentally unresolvable from our point of view (at least in my point of view.). I personally find it more rewarding to allow mysteries to exist, rather than to rail against them, since the latter is ultimately futile and creates more unhappiness than fulfillment. Thus, I cherish not only my 6 year old wonder at the dark splashes of bizarre pirates that sing and don't move and exist only for my pleasure, but also the stark walls and concrete behind them, the construct that somehow holds in a world I can enjoy without having to regret that the walls are there.

Now that time has run out, and I must attend to the day, I hope my thoughts have interested some of you, or at least been a bit amusing!

Cheers!
Lyta

[The Saucepan Man]

Well, there's a difference between allowing the possibility of evil, & allowing the presence of evil. Eru, as you say, must allow for the former, but the latter is not necessary.

Eru creates Arda with the 'presence' of evil inherent within it, not just the 'possibility' of it.

But once Eru imbued his children with free will, he had to accept the consequences, even though they might exercise that free will in such a way as to give rise to evil. Otherwise, he would be denying them the very free will which he gave them.

Eru created the Ainur with free will. As you say, davem, this allowed for the possibility of evil. He then allowed the Ainur to be involved in the conception of Arda through their participation in the Music. Melkor chose to exercise his free will in a way that gave rise to the certainty that evil would exist once the "blueprint" of Arda created by the Music was brought into being. But, if Eru were to have prevented that happening (for example by scrapping that "blueprint" and starting afresh), he would have been denying Melkor his free will. He was thus obliged to allow the possibility of evil to become a reality when Arda was created.

Eru also allowed his other children (Elves and Men) and his adopted children (Dwarves) to have free will. Because evil existed within Arda, they had the option to exercise their free will for evil purposes. (They may have been able to do so even had evil not exisited within Arda at its creation, courtesy of Melkor, but that is another issue.)

Why did Eru allow his children free will? Well, it is impossible for us to say, but it seems to me that the whole thing would have been rather a pointless exercise had he not done so. Without free will, the denizens of Arda would have been akin to automatons, simply living their lives according to fixed path which Eru had ordained. And, as Hookbill has said, they would have had no appreciation of their own innate goodness (and that of Eru), since there would have been no alternative with which to compare it.

So, where does this leave Frodo? Well, since evil existed in Arda, it was inevitable that certain individuals would be required to address the consequences of its presence. Frodo is not the only individual who suffered as a consequence of the existence of evil within Arda. There were, of course, countless others. Some must take at least some responsibility for their own suffering (as a result of the manner in which they exercised their free will), while others are entirely (or largely) innocent, but suffer primarily as a result of the way in which others exercise their free will. Frodo falls into the latter category. Once Sauron created the Ring (exercising his own free will) it was inevitable that someone would have to undergo the hardships that Frodo underwent and suffer the losses that he suffered in order to prevent (or at least try to prevent) Sauron prevailing. Frodo just happened to be that someone.

Or did he? What I find interesting is the way in which it appears that Eru intervenes to help bring about the destruction of the Ring. Eru cannot just intervene willy-nilly, since, by doing so, he denies the free will of those involved in the struggle. But, the way I see it, he does appear to intervene directly on at least two occasions. The first is when Bilbo first finds the Ring, if we are to take Gandalf's statement that it was intended that he find it (and not by its maker) at face value. The second is at Sammath Naur, when Gollum "fortuitously" slips and falls into the Crack of Doom with the Ring.

Now, I can understand Eru's intervention on the second occasion, since Frodo had done all that could have been expected of him. He could not voluntarily destroy the Ring because his free will was effectively negated by the Ring. In such circumstances, it seems justifiable to me for Eru to intervene to prevent Sauron's victory (which would have been inevitable, had Gollum not slipped). Frodo effectively had no free will at that point, so there was no free will for Eru to deny him by intervening.

But what about the first occasion? Admittedly, had Bilbo (or someone) not found the Ring, it would probably have been found by an Orc, in which case it would have swiftly found its way back to its Master. But why choose Bilbo to find it, thus practically ensuring that Bilbo or, more likely, his heir (Frodo) would be the one required to undergo the suffering involved in seeking to destroy it? In this sense, it seems to me to have been ordained by Eru that Frodo would be the one chosen to undertake this task. And this seems to me to be a violation of Frodo's free will. Although he undertook the Quest willingly he really had no clear idea as to precisely how it would affect him (as davem has said) and, in any event, he probably had no real choice in the matter since, once he became the Ringbearer, it seems unlikely that he would have been capable voluntarily of giving the Ring up. Had he not agreed to undertake the Quest, Sauron would probably have been the victor one way or another.

So the real question for me is why did Eru intervene in the way that he did at that moment when Bilbo was lost in the tunnels under the Misty Mountains? Surely he could have intervened in another way which would have prevented the Ring falling into Orcish hands. Of course, then someone else (one of the Dwarves perhaps, or his heir) would have had to have undertaken the Quest which Frodo eventually undertook (thus effectively denying that person (Dwarf?) their free will). But why did Eru choose Bilbo to find it and, therefore, Frodo to be the one to undertake the Quest of Mount Doom?

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Saucepan Man, the ring in the hands of a Dwarf may not have necessarily been a good thing. Reason not withstanding, Hobbits had an incredible resistance to the rings power, A Dwarf may have not had the will or strength to even take up the challenge, only one with the simplicity and innocence of a Hobbit could do the deed, but I think Frodo will have known that If he was to accomplish the deed he would have to sacrifice much.

The Message I think Tolkien wants us to read from this is, The Hobbits were not over occupied with war or the memory of war; battle and power was not impotent to them.

"Elves and Dragons! Cabbages and potatoes are better for you."

Gaffer Gamgee

This pretty much sums up the attitude of the Hobbits. Their innocence was what made them resilient to the ring, Eru knew this, and so you can trace the pattern all the way back to when Olorin was created, Perhaps Gandalf's purpose was to send Bilbo on this mission to the Lonely mountain and so find the ring on the way, thus entangling himself in all deeds concerning the ring.

In U-T it tells us of how Gandalf remembered Bilbo as a child;

"Somehow I had been attracted by Bilbo Long before, as a child, and a young Hobit: he had not quite come of age when I had last seen him. He had stayed in my mind ever since, with his eagerness and his bright eyes, and his love of tales, and his questions about the wide world outside the Shire. As soon as I entered the shire I had news of him. He was getting talked about, it seemed. Both his parents had died early for Shire-folk, at about 80; and he had never married. He was already grown a bit queer, they said, and went off for days by himself. He could even be seen talking to strangers, even Dwarves!
Gandalf, Unfinished Tales, the Quest of Erebor

It is my belief that Eru Purposed it that Gendalf should remember Bilbo and so send him on this task, because hobbits had such resilience to the ring, he knew the ring would be dropped by Gollum, so he guided Bilbo's hand to find it. Old Olorin then left Bilbo with the choice to give up the ring of his own free will or to keep it, or be it with a little encouragement.