Lord Melkor Rightful Master of the Fates of Arda

[Hookbill the Goomba]

I think davem has a point. To raise, again, one of my favorite writers, C.S. Lewis, in his book, 'The Problem of Pain' he says something along the lines of this:

Originally Posted by C.S. Lewis: The Problem of Pain

If God were to prevent anything, bad from happening then what would our lives be like? To be offered a choice in anything would be pointless because one choice would lead to nothing and so wouldn't be a choice at all because God would stop it from happening. Likewise, it would be impossible to insult someone or say anything that might (intended or otherwise) offend or hurt someone because God would have to put a stop to our vocal cords from being able to form such a phrase or statement. By the same logic, evil thought would be prevented, meaning that the membranes and things would be severed from making the connections necessary to form a thought that might be bad.
Omnipotence means: "Power to do all" or "everything". Many argue that 'If God were real and good he would do such and such', if one were to argue back that this would be impossible, we are met with the answer "But I thought God could do everything." This raises the question of what 'impossibility' is. How often do we hear the word 'impossible' attached to the word 'unless'?
For example, it is impossible for me to see the street from where I am sitting... that is, it is impossible unless I am to walk over to another room with a window that overlooks the street. If, however, I had broken my legs, I should say 'it is impossible to go to the other room' that is, 'it is impossible... unless some friends come over who would be willing to carry me'.
So, it is impossible to see the street so long as I stay where I am and the intervening walls remain where they are. Someone might add, 'unless the nature of space or vision were changed so that you could see around corners.' I do not know how the best physicists would reply, but I should say, "I don't know if space and time could possibly be of such a nature as you suggest." Here the words 'could possibly' obviously refer to some kind of ultimate possibility or impossibility, which is different to relative possibility. I do not know if seeing around corners is impossible or not because I do not know if it is self-contradictory or not. But if it is self contradictory, then it is absolutely impossible. The absolutely impossible may also be called the intrinsically impossible because it carries its impossibility in itself. It has no 'unless'. It is impossible in all worlds and for all agents.
God's omnipotence is power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not nonsense. You may attribute miracles to him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to his power. If you say, "God can give a creature free will and at the same time take it away" you have not said anything about God. Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire meaning because we attribute them to God.
We must also remember that human reasoners often make mistakes, by either arguing from false data or other means. We may then come to think things possible that are impossible and vice versa. One needs great wisdom to define what these intrinsic impossibilities are.

So what do people expect of God then? For him to take away everything that makes us who we are? Stop us from having experiences and such so that we never learn from mistakes or otherwise? Or do people just want a God that is indifferent or says, "What does it matter if they are good or Bad? As long as they are happy!" so what they really want is less a Father in heaven, more a Grandfather, a senile old man giving out sweets indifferent to all. For, of course, one man may find great pleasure in the torture of another or the throwing of insults, which means that the other party would not feel pleasure but pain. What is to happen here?
Some say that they wish God would just leave us alone and to our own devises in order to seek out our own happiness (a thing in itself we cannot define, really). It seems that people do not want more love from God, but less. If a father sees a son playing with matches and the child is very happy in itself, will he not take the matches from him lest he burn himself thought the child may feel that he is unfairly treated or had had a great asset taken from him?

I have abridged it, of course. The whole argument is... well... as long as a book.

Whether or not one can associate Lewis' theology with Tolkien's world I do not know. I know that Lewis apparently read much of The Problem of Pain out to the Inklings so, if nothing else, Tolkien may well have been aware of it and very possibly influenced by it.

We, of course, cannot say for certain.

'Such questions cannot be answered,' said Gandalf. 'You may be sure that it was not for any merit that others do not possess: not for power or wisdom at any rate. But you have been chosen, and you therefore must use such stength and heart and wits as you have.'
'But I have so little of these things! You are wise and powerful. Will you not take the Ring?'
'No!' cried Gandalf, springing to his feet. 'With that power I should have power too great and terrible. And over me the Ring would gain a power still greater and more deadly.' His eyes flashed and his face was lit as by a fire within. 'Do not tempt me! For I do not wish to become like the Dark Lord himself. Yet the way of the Ring to my heart is by pity. Pity for weakness and the desire of strength to do good. Do not tempt me! I dare not take it, not even to keep it safe, unused. The wish to wield it would be too great for my strength. I shall have such need of it. Great perils lie before me.'

I wonder sometimes exactly how the wisdom and will of Gandalf to do good would have been twisted to evil. To my mind, I cannot help but to see parallels in our own modern societies.
If Gondor and Harad went to war over conflicts between farmers, tradesmen and their caravans along the southern border, and let's say for arguments sake that a citizen of Gondor had planted rows of wheat along and over the border, in the years following the Great War when Harad had been driven back, and then a Haradian's retaliation began a series of events which brought both kingdoms head to head once more.
Would Gandalf with his farseeing and deep vision see that judging each individual case on it's merits would ultimately lead to more cause for even more and more unceasing struggle? Perhaps, I think, Gandalf would see that the Border itself was to blame, no border, no source of contention. Once realizing that, he would see that the idenities themselves of the people within the two geographic areas had brought the border into being, and that that was even more deeply the fundamental source of the border, over which the contentions had been given birth, to grow into wars between the two peoples. So, in pursuit of peace and the happiness therin, Gandalf erases all sense of idenity from the minds of both Haradians and Gondorians and they cease even having a conception in their minds as being anything other than people, and . . . .
In todays world I have seen a mentally retarded man love the Catholic Priest who beats him unmercifully for his sins. I have seen drought in primative agrarian cultures lead to a million deaths by starvation and read the treatise of economist who calculate the advantages of this vacumn created within labor, out of which will pour surpluses from industry, the resulting loss in production in each, will then drive values up, and benefit the economy.
In The Lord of the Rings, I think of two occasions, the 'deaths' of Saruman and Sauron. In both occasions their physical forms became like clouds, like a basic lesson in chemistry: Solids to Gasses. And then, the gasses were blown by another gas, more dense and greater volumn, more turbulant; the Wind: Manwe.
And the converted gasses of both Saruman and Sauron became vapor. Complete molecular disintegration. They, in effect, lost their self awareness, life, or, Idenity if you will. The molecules were scattered all over the world. And eventually inhaled, inbibed, eaten, or shallowed, and each one of us to this day has a little particle of Sauron and Saruman integrated into our own atomic structure.

Mr. Goomba's Lewis qoute got me thinking, about how God could stop our minds and vocal cords from forming hurtful phrases. What if our government, not satisfied with helmets and seatbelt laws, passed a law that we had to take bionano technology, microscopic computerchips that interface with the electro-chemical operations of our brains, to prevent us from running red lights when we're late for work.

Besides, Manwe was dull and boring. No personality. Going over my memory, I believe the most often appearing exclaimation from Manwe goes something like, "I don't know, let me go ask Illuvatar . . ."

There is trouble in the forest.
There is trouble with the trees.
For the Maples want more sunlight,
And the Oaks ignore their pleas.

The Trouble with the Maples;
and they're quite convinced they're right,
They say the Oaks are just too lucky,
And they grab up all the light.
But the Oaks can't help their feelings,
If they like the way they're made,
And they wonder why the Maples
Can't be happy in their shade.

There is trouble in the forest,
And the creatures all have fled,
For the Maples scream, 'Oppression!',
And the Oaks just shake their heads.

So the Maples formed a union,
And demanded equal rights,
They say the Oaks are just to greedy,
'We will make them give us light!'
Now there's no more Oak oppression,
For they cast a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal,
By hatchet, axe and saw.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by C.S. Lewis

So what do people expect of God then? For him to take away everything that makes us who we are? Stop us from having experiences and such so that we never learn from mistakes or otherwise? Or do people just want a God that is indifferent or says, "What does it matter if they are good or Bad? As long as they are happy!" so what they really want is less a Father in heaven, more a Grandfather, a senile old man giving out sweets indifferent to all. For, of course, one man may find great pleasure in the torture of another or the throwing of insults, which means that the other party would not feel pleasure but pain. What is to happen here?
Some say that they wish God would just leave us alone and to our own devises in order to seek out our own happiness (a thing in itself we cannot define, really). It seems that people do not want more love from God, but less. If a father sees a son playing with matches and the child is very happy in itself, will he not take the matches from him lest he burn himself thought the child may feel that he is unfairly treated or had had a great asset taken from him?

Thanks for the quote, Hookbill.

How about a god who, having the ability, stops needless suffering? Sure, I know that a little suffering does me some good, as I, as an adult, have the ability to understand and therefore gain wisdom from the ordeal. But what about children? What about those that live out a mean short life full of pain and sorrow then end up dead. Where's the point in all of that? Some might say that these little ones are to suffer that I may learn something, but that, to me, is just whitewash.

As a father, I know that there are times when my children must learn via pain - the burned hand, the skinned knee, the bruised heart. But there are times when I must intervene, as the child may not survive the lesson (i.e. swallowing poison), and so there is no point to allowing the rebellion to continue. Maybe there are more strong-hearted fathers out there who allow their children to explore free will to death, literally, but me - I want to save all of them. Anyway...

And what is good? I've never been comfortable when confronted with, purportedly, moral absolutes, as I've always noticed that there's an asterisk next to the "thou shall not..."

Note that I'm not after any particular religion or creed here, but just trying to make a point:

• Thou shall not kill...except when unbelievers get in the way.

• Thou shall not eat each other...except when stranded in the Andes.

• Incest is bad...except when consolidating power via a monarchy.

• etc

So what is good? When we act in conformity with our community's needs and expectation? When we promote the survival of our genes (and the genes of those like us - a possible explanation of altruism)? Anyway.

Life under Melkor would not be good. He was all about power, and the only way to know that you're in control of another, as indicated by George Orwell, is to make the other miserable. That way, you know that they do your will and not their own, which would be to escape misery. Eru and Manwe allow for a possible good life. I can do what I want - seek happiness - to the limits that the world allows, knowing that Melkor, Sauron or one of his spawn will be trying to hedge me in.

Melkor could have been good, but he sought to interfere with others' abilities to explore their freedom, and did not want to establish a border with some compromise.

[davem]

Thing about lewis was his tendency to adopt extremes - he flips from 'The idea of God makes no sense, & belief is irrational' to 'The idea if God is the most sensible thing in the world, & belief is an entirely logical response.'

Its this 'extremism' that is the problem. Lewis never seemed able to simply admit 'Er, you know what - I can't explain that. It doesn't make sense. In fact, it seems unfair. However I trust that things will make sense in the end.' His 'explanation' as given by Hookbill, works up to a point, but it doesn't cover every base - which Lewis seems to imply it does.

[alatar]

Another reason Sauron is not due praise and adoration: He, like Gandalf, had Gollum in his grasp. He interrogates the wretch, then sends him out into the world to hunt for the Ring, hoping that the trail left by this one-thought-desire creature will lead him to his Precious. He even put a fear on the creature that Gandalf wasn't able to break with his pyrotechnics. Yet...

Unlike Gandalf, didn't the Eye see that Gollum would have a part to play in the end game? Did Sauron see this, yet remain hopeful that things would still 'fall' in his favor?

Gandalf knew; Sauron blew (it).

[Elmo]

A bit of a change of topic here, but does anyone else findit slightly uncomfortable that Tolkien connected atheism and Morgothism in Morgoth's Ring?

[The Might]

Originally Posted by alatar

Unlike Gandalf, didn't the Eye see that Gollum would have a part to play in the end game? Did Sauron see this, yet remain hopeful that things would still 'fall' in his favor?

I doubt Sauron ever thought of such a possibility, as seen later in the decisions he makes. If he had considered this possibility, he would have made sure nothing would ever come into Mordor unwanted.

He probably thought that Gollum would never come close to repentance and would never lead anyone into Mordor, but would instead try to kill the Ringbearer and hide himself with the Ring somewhere, where he would eventually, sooner or later, be discovered by Sauron's minions.

Too much self-confidence...