Let's Talk Morgoth

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by alatar

Wonder how Tolkien found this as he was a Roman Catholic? Satan, whom many consider to be like Melkor, is never thought to be 'part of the original plan.'

Personally, as a practising Roman Catholic myself, I never once saw Melkor's meddling as a part of the original plan. Melkor's self-seeking musical changes were exactly the same, in my mind, as Lucifer's pride. The thing though, is that Eru/God allows his sentient creatures freedom. Thus, although it was not Iluvatar's intent, when Melkor disrupted the Music intended to be the act of creation, Iluvatar did not obliterate it and start over again, but rather, he took up the changes and used them to make Arda a more beautiful, ultimately better place. Our free will, like Melkor's, can disrupt the divine intentions, and make life worse for our peers, but in the end, God's will can bend all things towards Him and his ultimate goal.

We may steer the car into the ditch, but God will keep us going towards out destination, even if it be over field and fen.

[obloquy]

We may steer the car into the ditch, but God will keep us going towards out destination, even if it be over field and fen.

Without condemning us as "evil," aye?

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by obloquy

Without condemning us as "evil," aye?

Well, like the owner of the car, he might be pleased that it makes it to the end destination, but I rather suspect that those responsible for steering into the ditch will receive their just reward for mucking it up and ruining the transmission...

[HerenIstarion]

...will receive their just reward for mucking it up....

Deliberate steering into the ditch, I hope and suppose.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

I never once saw Melkor's meddling as a part of the original plan. Melkor's self-seeking musical changes were exactly the same, in my mind, as Lucifer's pride.

If Melkor was not part of the original plan, then Iluvatar is not omniscient and therefore may not be 'God,' or at least an all-knowing all-powerful one. Is there then one greater than he? Does Iluvatar limit himself, whether consciously or subconsciously, in regards to not 'unmaking' Melkor? And just how does one limit the infinite?

I think that Iluvatar bet ("played dice" ) that by giving Melkor all of the abilities of the other Valar that he would be prideful, rebel, create new music and in the end fulfill Iluvatar's intentions of creating things more wonderful than Iluvatar could have achieved sans Melkor.

Anyway, where I see Melkor and Satan differing is in that Iluvatar uses Melkor's discordance to create things even greater whereas is seems to me that the Christian God is at odds with Satan and never would overtly 'use' something from the same. I know that all things still reflect the glory of God, but in Tolkien's world it is stated directly. Another thought: whereas Manwe is the King of Arda and Melkor is the Anti-King (so to speak), Lucifer is the purported king of this world and God is the King of everything not of this world.

The thing though, is that Eru/God allows his sentient creatures freedom. Thus, although it was not Iluvatar's intent, when Melkor disrupted the Music intended to be the act of creation, Iluvatar did not obliterate it and start over again, but rather, he took up the changes and used them to make Arda a more beautiful, ultimately better place.

So again he must not have minded the disruption. Not to debate the other book, but the Christian God drowned a world full of people expressing their free will. Iluvatar let each censor its own type (Vala, Maia, Eldar with occasional overlap).

Our free will, like Melkor's, can disrupt the divine intentions, and make life worse for our peers, but in the end, God's will can bend all things towards Him and his ultimate goal.

Though I understand what you are trying to say, note that you cannot "disrupt the divine intentions" of a God by definition. Even Satan/Melkor, being a creation of the god of the particular world, could not influence the same without the permission from said god. And in regards to "God's will can bend all things towards Him and his ultimate goal,' where does free will end and God's will start? I kinda like that idea that the rules of the game have been set up and now we're on our own.

[obloquy]

Hi, alatar, I'm obloquy. I'm pleased to meet you and I hope you post frequently.

Great post.

[HerenIstarion]

Alatar, well argued. Despite my total disagreement, can't help but approve of form, if not of content.

It may be advisable to look at the following:

Of evil, free will and fate (by legolas)
The role of fate in Middle Earth (by Mithadan)
The halls of Mandos and elvish free will (by JenFramp). (see post #18 of that thread. It was not written as direct answer to questions you rise, rather elvish fate was in mind, but I think it may work in this case too)

About ‘incorporating’ of Melkor/Satan’s undoing into further creation – one thing to remember is a Christian concept that God has no need to create.

Crude analogy:

Suppose I have a cow, and a garden. Suppose further the cow defecated on a path in my garden. It is not a proper place for a cow to do the deed, and evaluation I may give the event would be ‘bad’. My further course of action may be manifold:

1. I may use the manure to dung the flowerbed and grow flowers
2. I may simply throw it away

It does not follow, though:

1. That I was obliged to use that particular ‘bad’ piece of manure for fertilization
2. That I was unable to grow flowers by other means if I threw it away, after all

That I take it up and use it for better purposes, thus ‘cleansing’ the paths in my garden back to original and producing more beauty through doings of my cow, is my glory

EDIT: point about freedom - when I gave my cow the freedom to walk my garden, I certainly counted for possibility it may do the thing in inappropriate place. That I hoped it would be a good cow, and not use the freedom I gave her to defecate there is, I believe, obvious. That I valued her freedom more than my possible displeasure with necessity of spade-work, is, I hope, likewise obvious. That I would have loved her more (and my end in letting her into the garden in the first place) if she used her free will to refrain from the deed, is what follows (see also Was Eru a sadist by bombadil, post #14) END OF EDIT

Obloquy, mere arbiter above Good and Evil and other than both does not work, I'm sorry. What would be the ground for judgement? Brilliance of performance? Artistry? But point about moral law I can accept, sure. I'd rather word it simpler, like 'Ultimate being of God expresses itself as moral imperative in all created beings. To accept the imperative is good. Creature has the right and ability to choose or choose not the acceptance of the imperative. That'd be freedom

cheers

[alatar]

Thanks to all for the kind words.

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

Suppose I have a cow, and a garden. Suppose further the cow defecated on a path in my garden. It is not a proper place for a cow to do the deed, and evaluation I may give the event would be ‘bad’. My further course of action may be manifold:

1. I may use the manure to dung the flowerbed and grow flowers
2. I may simply throw it away

It does not follow, though:

1. That I was obliged to use that particular ‘bad’ piece of manure for fertilization
2. That I was unable to grow flowers by other means if I threw it away, after all

That I take it up and use it for better purposes, thus ‘cleansing’ the paths in my garden back to original and producing more beauty through doings of my cow, is my glory

I assume that one could remove the manure from the garden, as if it had never happened. Or, next year, not allow the cow in the garden at all. Or plant a new garden with a fence and a 'no cow' rule. From a worm's POV, it would seem that the Gardener could have done something about the organic material, and if not, then either chose not to ("I'll work it into my glory") or could not do so ("I can't alter the cow's free will"). When the worm overhears the Gardener talking in the garden, and hears that the Gardener could completely destroy the garden, replant the garden, remove the manure, eat the cow, etc, and yet the cow gets back in again and does 'the deed' again, some worms may begin to doubt the Gardener's abilities or desires.

Anyway, as I know nothing of cows, but more about canines - especially one in particular that lives with us and is treated as if it were human (sigh)...when I go out into the backyard to clean it up, inevitably (and if there is a universal law, this may be it), I step in what we refer to as the dog's "business." Initially, I want to blame her, but really, it's my fault. I wasn't careful enough, I let the job go undone to where the odds of stepping on grass decreased, etc. I am ultimately responsible for the dog and where it does its business.

Surely God takes some of the responsibility for the business.

EDIT: point about freedom - when I gave my cow the freedom to walk my garden, I certainly counted for possibility it may do the thing in inappropriate place. That I hoped it would be a good cow, and not use the freedom I gave her to defecate there is, I believe, obvious.

A cow eats grass, and the waste product goes where? It's not like you would say, "hey, call the TV news! I think that my cow defecated!" You knew full well what the cow does, and assuming that you really know this cow, you also know that the chances of 'going in the garden' are high, yet you still let it in. Is the cow bad for doing what it must do? Is not the Gardener bad for placing the cow in the Garden then calling it not good for what is natural for the cow? Did the Gardener tell the cow not to do said deed? Did the cow understanfd?

Poor cow.

[Formendacil]

Great posts, davem and HerenIstarion! What I wanted to say, but couldn't/didn't.

Originally Posted by alatar

A cow eats grass, and the waste product goes where? It's not like you would say, "hey, call the TV news! I think that my cow defecated!" You knew full well what the cow does, and assuming that you really know this cow, you also know that the chances of 'going in the garden' are high, yet you still let it in. Is the cow bad for doing what it must do? Is not the Gardener bad for placing the cow in the Garden then calling it not good for what is natural for the cow? Did the Gardener tell the cow not to do said deed? Did the cow understanfd?

There is a major difference between a cow and a man, that of free will. It is the perennial problem of a parable: if you translate God to a man, what do you translate a man to? If to another man, then God loses the greater wisdom and power that He has over man. If to a lower life form, then man loses the free will which defines his relationship with God. A parable is an imprecise way of explaining things, intended not to be taken at 100% face value.

Originally Posted by alatar

Eru, knowing the future yet not changing the present to avoid said future, condemned multitudes to lives of pain, suffering and anguish. And I'm not talking about Eldar or Edain - what about the orcs? Assume not the originals, but your standard Third Age model. What chance does said orc have in regards to free will? Even, presumably, if an orc could be 'good,' it would be either cut down by its brethren or by the forces of good ("hey guys, wait! I'm on your side...")

Thanks a lot, Eru - guess that free will stuff is only for the pretty people.

Tolkien himself struggled with this- hence his perennial indecision as to their origins. Are they man, animal, vegetable, or mineral? Therefore, to bring up the orks is a rather invalid argument, and not quite pertinent to the discussion at hand. Unless unequivocal proof can be displayed about Tolkien's decision on the subject, it is like the Balrog wings debate: fascinating, with support for each and every opinion, but impossible to decide completely, and not much help in any other debate.

Originally Posted by alatar

Assume that the Christian God, who is stated to be Good, created me. Assume that I will end up in eternal punishment through my own free will as the evidence sufficient to win over my created brain is lacking. Assume that this God knows this. Why did he create me only to have me suffer for eternity? Given the choice, I would have asked not to be created. Is this god good or evil?

Would it be fair though, for a good God to treat the evil and the good the same? After all, justice is an essential component of goodness. Is it just, therefore, for God to treat an amoral, immoral, murderer-rapist who enjoyed his life to the fullest at the expense of others, with no thought of repentence, with exactly the same reward as child-saint who was poor, starved, and abused, but love with all his little heart?

Besides which, anyone who is truly evil is someone who REJECTS God entirely. Such a person could never live in Heaven because Heaven would be anathema to him. Death would change such a person's free will, because God abides by the rules that HE had put into place, and his free will would not allow him to accept a life in heaven, praising, thanking, and glorifying the God he had rejected.

Originally Posted by alatar

Same god promises land to a group of people. This land is currently occupied. The newcomers exterminate the occupants. Yet this God prohibits murder. But there obviously are exceptions....Is this god good or evil?

But God did not commit the murders, so how are we to know that he condoned them? He did not write the Book of Judges personally, so how do we know that he approved them? Wouldn't the author want divine approval for his people's takeover? Wouldn't that legitimize their right to it?

More importantly though, who are we to say that the Canaanites didn't deserve it when the Israelites came and slaughtered them? They weren't saints, they worshiped the same idols that God condemns again and again throughout the Old Testament, and that He repeatedly punishes the Israelites for worshipping.

My point is that there is a bit more to the situation than you seem to be making out...

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by Alatar

Assume that the Christian God, who is stated to be Good, created me. Assume that I will end up in eternal punishment through my own free will as the evidence sufficient to win over my created brain is lacking. Assume that this God knows this. Why did he create me only to have me suffer for eternity? Given the choice, I would have asked not to be created. Is this god good or evil?

emphasis mine

This was already answered by Formendacil, but I'd like to add up a tiny bit. See, per instance Descent into Hell by Lush, post #12. It is just another parable to back up Formendacil (i.e. God does not throw creature out of heaven, creature, as a consequence of its free will, withdraws itself out of it)

Another comment (to emphasized part of it) - the evidence the brain may lack or have in abundance is if not of no, but of minor consequence here. 'Inscrutable are...'. The built-in standards of what is Good (moral imperatives we've been discussing earlier) are the guidelines. The will is what counts, not intellectual ability or lack thereof, not physical prowess or lack thereof. 'Rich will not inherit the kingdom' does not necessarily imply literally rich, but may include intellectually rich, and rich with health etc etc.

This is seen through LoTR, see LotR -- Book 3 - Chapter 02 - The Riders of Rohan , post #3

do I write like an archivist, solemnly producing dry sheets of paper out of dusty shelves, ? Well, for those with lack of time to follow links, short summary:

A. Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another among Men. It is a man’s part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house

B. Yet in doubt a man of worth will trust to his own wisdom
C. It shall not be so. I myself will go to war, to fall in the front of the battle, if it must be. Thus shall I sleep better

Mark you, that in B entry, wisdom does not equal intellect, or amount of information one is in possession of. It is rather knowledge of built-in moral imperative than empirical data. It does not imply also that those who make their living by those lines know there is Eru at all. And in a way, the lack of such knowledge glorifies their sticking by their credo even more.

cheers

[Ainaserkewen]

Originally posted by Hookbill, post #2
Many will say he represents Lucifer, Tolkien being Catholic and all that’s an understandable theory. I can sympathise with this theory in many ways, there are some similarities. Firstly he was a mighty spirit, like an angel, and he was the chieftain of them. Like Lucifer, who was a chief angel and is counted to have been given the greatest gifts of power, beauty and wisdom. As was Melkor.

I am told that Lucifer was a chief angel, yes, but of what? The Choir of angels...isnt that interesting. Perhaps a deliberate connection in religion.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Alatar

If Melkor was not part of the original plan, then Iluvatar is not omniscient and therefore may not be 'God,' or at least an all-knowing all-powerful one.

Well, one has to distinguish between Eru's plan & Eru's omniscience. The fact that Eru is omniscient merely means he knows what will be, not that he planned it. Eru's omniscience does not deny free will to any of His creatures - they are free to do as they will, but Eru, existing outside space-time & seeing past-present-future from an eternal 'now', knows what they will do. Knowing this, he can take what they do into account & choose what to do about it - in other words, He can alter his original plan to take into account the actions of His creatures, but that doesn't alter the fact that his original plan (the form it had when it arose in His mind) did not include Melkor's rebellion.

I think that Iluvatar bet ("played dice" ) that by giving Melkor all of the abilities of the other Valar that he would be prideful, rebel, create new music and in the end fulfill Iluvatar's intentions of creating things more wonderful than Iluvatar could have achieved sans Melkor.

Problem with this is that Melkor suffered as a result of his pride & his resulting rebellion. If Eru had intended his rebellion He must also have intended his suffering, making him 'evil', or at best amoral. On the other hand, if Eru simply made use of Melkor's free choices, while notintending them, he remains 'Good', as Melkor's suffering is a consequence of his own freely willed choices.

Originally Posted by Obloquy

God isn't just "good" because he never makes an error that leads to bad, he is the ultimate good because that's what he chooses to define himself as. He is the arbiter on a tier above the two sides.

One could argue that rather than 'Eru is 'Good'' we should say 'Good' is Eru' - ie 'Good' is whatever Eru says it is? (Eru as a kind of divine Humpty-dumpty - 'When I use a word it means exactly what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less'). I don't think this works in the context of Middle earth, as there is a(n unstated) 'natural law', a moral code which is logically consistent & understandable. In short, Eru is not a chaotic but intelligent 'force', acting arbitrarily. At the very least 'Good' & evil (as Aragorn points out to Eomer) do not change over the years.

If 'Good' was simply what Eru decided it was at any particular juncture, then how could a man judge what was Good & what was evil. The fact that within Middle earth a man can judge 'as he always has done' (& as his ancestors similarly had done) implies that there is some kind of objective standard of what constitutes the 'Good'. Now, in Middle earth there is no equivalent of the Bible or the Quran, & 'right' & 'wrong, Good & evil are simply known (& either accepted or rejected) by each individual. This can only be because each individual, having their ultimate origin in the Mind of Eru, has 'inherited' something of that divinity (the individual fea), & knows the difference between right & wrong. If Eru's 'values' are simply arbitrary then each individual's value system (in a world without revelation) would be equally arbitrary - but we know that this is not the case. There is no equivalent to the Ten Commandments in Middle earth, so the fact that there is a general agreement on what constitutes the 'Good' means that it must be logically consistent, & it must make sense to live by it (ie it must provide some kind of social benefit).

Which brings me to what what you say about Eru 'choosing' to define Himself as 'Good'. Does this mean that He has made a choice to be Good but could equally well have chosen to be 'evil'? Wouldn't this mean that Good & evil are moral 'equivalents' neither one more valid than the other? Perhaps on the 'cosmic' level, but on the level of day to day reality 'good' behaviour benefits the greatest number of people & harms the least number. Yet if Ea is structured in such a way that this is the case, & Ea arose in the mind of Eru, as part of His original plan, one can only assume that this 'choice' was made because in His omniscience, knowing Good & evil, He saw that 'Good' was better.

Of course, one cannot assume at all that He made such a 'choice' - maybe the 'Good' is a reflection of His nature - ie, He is 'Good', His nature corresponds to an objective standard of 'Goodness'.

(Its amazing what rubbish one produces when one is bored )

[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

Well, one has to distinguish between Eru's plan & Eru's omniscience. The fact that Eru is omniscient merely means he knows what will be, not that he planned it. Eru's omniscience does not deny free will to any of His creatures - they are free to do as they will, but Eru, existing outside space-time & seeing past-present-future from an eternal 'now', knows what they will do. Knowing this, he can take what they do into account & choose what to do about it - in other words, He can alter his original plan to take into account the actions of His creatures, but that doesn't alter the fact that his original plan (the form it had when it arose in His mind) did not include Melkor's rebellion.

So what you are saying is that Eru knew that Melkor would rebel, yet he went ahead and created him anyway. This is one of my issues with omniscience, infinite, etc beings as it just doesn't make sense.

Problem with this is that Melkor suffered as a result of his pride & his resulting rebellion. If Eru had intended his rebellion He must also have intended his suffering, making him 'evil', or at best amoral. On the other hand, if Eru simply made use of Melkor's free choices, while notintending them, he remains 'Good', as Melkor's suffering is a consequence of his own freely willed choices.

Eru, knowing the future yet not changing the present to avoid said future, condemned multitudes to lives of pain, suffering and anguish. And I'm not talking about Eldar or Edain - what about the orcs? Assume not the originals, but your standard Third Age model. What chance does said orc have in regards to free will? Even, presumably, if an orc could be 'good,' it would be either cut down by its brethren or by the forces of good ("hey guys, wait! I'm on your side...")

Thanks a lot, Eru - guess that free will stuff is only for the pretty people.

Now, in Middle earth there is no equivalent of the Bible or the Quran, & 'right' & 'wrong, Good & evil are simply known (& either accepted or rejected) by each individual. This can only be because each individual, having their ultimate origin in the Mind of Eru, has 'inherited' something of that divinity (the individual fea), & knows the difference between right & wrong. If Eru's 'values' are simply arbitrary then each individual's value system (in a world without revelation) would be equally arbitrary - but we know that this is not the case. There is no equivalent to the Ten Commandments in Middle earth, so the fact that there is a general agreement on what constitutes the 'Good' means that it must be logically consistent, & it must make sense to live by it (ie it must provide some kind of social benefit).

Are not the orcs Children of Eru? Or are they condemned from birth with some taint of Melkor that does not permit them to know both good and evil, and so they cannot choose. One would then say that the orcs are neither good nor bad but only doing what they naturally do.

Which brings me to what what you say about Eru 'choosing' to define Himself as 'Good'. Does this mean that He has made a choice to be Good but could equally well have chosen to be 'evil'? Wouldn't this mean that Good & evil are moral 'equivalents' neither one more valid than the other? Perhaps on the 'cosmic' level, but on the level of day to day reality 'good' behaviour benefits the greatest number of people & harms the least number. Yet if Ea is structured in such a way that this is the case, & Ea arose in the mind of Eru, as part of His original plan, one can only assume that this 'choice' was made because in His omniscience, knowing Good & evil, He saw that 'Good' was better.

How can one judge the maker of reality? I would like to dip into Christianity to make a point (Note that I have no desire to offend any person or creed, but just am making an argument):

Assume that the Christian God, who is stated to be Good, created me. Assume that I will end up in eternal punishment through my own free will as the evidence sufficient to win over my created brain is lacking. Assume that this God knows this. Why did he create me only to have me suffer for eternity? Given the choice, I would have asked not to be created. Is this god good or evil?

Same god promises land to a group of people. This land is currently occupied. The newcomers exterminate the occupants. Yet this God prohibits murder. But there obviously are exceptions....Is this god good or evil?

(Its amazing what rubbish one produces when one is bored )

Agreed. It's also amazing what one will write when one starts ranting on (and I mean me!).

[davem]

Originally Posted by alatar

Eru, knowing the future yet not changing the present to avoid said future, condemned multitudes to lives of pain, suffering and anguish. And I'm not talking about Eldar or Edain - what about the orcs? Assume not the originals, but your standard Third Age model. What chance does said orc have in regards to free will? Even, presumably, if an orc could be 'good,' it would be either cut down by its brethren or by the forces of good ("hey guys, wait! I'm on your side...")

Thanks a lot, Eru - guess that free will stuff is only for the pretty people.

Are not the orcs Children of Eru? Or are they condemned from birth with some taint of Melkor that does not permit them to know both good and evil, and so they cannot choose. One would then say that the orcs are neither good nor bad but only doing what they naturally do.

Eru had an original plan, which didn't include orcs. This was to be the blueprint for Arda. However, Melkor, utilising his Eru given free will, decided to change that blueprint. Eru, having freely given free will to Melkor, could not take it back - otherwise it would not have been a 'gift'. Once created & given autonomy (indeed probably once concieved in the mind of Eru) there is no going back. Eru may know what will come but he does not dictate it. He is just as bound by the 'Rules' as his creatures.

Assume that the Christian God, who is stated to be Good, created me. Assume that I will end up in eternal punishment through my own free will as the evidence sufficient to win over my created brain is lacking. Assume that this God knows this. Why did he create me only to have me suffer for eternity? Given the choice, I would have asked not to be created. Is this god good or evil?

Ah, but for you to have such a choice between not having been created or spending eternity in hell, you would have to exist. You seem to require God to make your choices for you before you even come into being. Whether you end up 'damned' or 'saved' will be a consequence of your freely willed choices. God can't make your choices for you & then force them on you - if He did then he would simply be a puppet master.

But this is getting off topic, as there is no hell or eternal damnation in Middle earth. Sentient beings, on death, go to the Halls of Mandos to learn the lessons of their lives. I would assume that if Orcs were sentient beings, descended from Elves, then dying they would pass to Mandos to be purified & perhaps re-born in their original forms - of course that's just speculation on my part & I can't recall whether Tolkien wrote anything about Orcs going to Mandos

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

Eru may know what will come but he does not dictate it. He is just as bound by the 'Rules' as his creatures.

Yet he can intervene - or so we are led to believe by incidents such as Bilbo's finding of the Ring and Gollum's fatal stumble at Sammath Naur.