Let's Talk Morgoth

In Morgoth's Ring (by C. Tolkien) we are told that his power/life-force was vested in ME itself.
What does this mean in its logical totality?
And, based upon that answer, who did J.R.R. Tolkien mean Morgoth to be (symbolically)?

[Hookbill the Goomba]

It is important for any fantasy and made up history for they’re to be a form of evil. Morgoth is just that. 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.

He tries to raise himself above all his peers and wishes to be master over other wills. He is then cast from the order and remains an evil force in the world for many an age. And perhaps Melkor's being thrown into the void is a representation of Satan's being cast into hell.

Melkor's power and life force were bound to middle earth like all of the Valar. Also, one could say this referees to the fact that the black seed of evil that was left by Melkor, he still lived on. Like Sauron was his student and soon became the master in Morgoth's shadow.

That is one view. I cannot say that it holds all the water needed. There are many theories, but this was the only one I could think of at the moment.

[Makar]

I try not to read to much into Tolkien, symbolically. Especially since I read that bit in the prologue about "applicability". Beyond that, it seems that Morgoth being bound to the earth helped reinforce that he was no longer of Aman or the Valar, which separated themselves from the earth. All "worldly" evil seems to have come from him. (Ungoliant being an example "external" evil, not a direct result of Melko's meddling). As always, correct me if I'm wrong.

[Aiwendil]

who did J.R.R. Tolkien mean Morgoth to be (symbolically)?

He intended Morgoth to be Morgoth.

As for Morgoth's dissemination of power: I think that this is an interesting feature and is one way in which Tolkien's mythology diverges somewhat from Christian myth. It is tempting to say that this brings a Manichean strain into the mythos.

[burrahobbit]

The taint of Melkor exists in every bit of matter that exists. This taint can not be removed without destroying everything and starting over. The bodies of Men and Elves are made of the stuff of the earth. Thus, Evil always exists inside of us a something to overcome. It's sort of Eru's little test to make sure that you are a worthwhile person.

[alatar]

Melkor, unlike the other Valar, sought dominion and this required a piece of himself to be given up. Like when Aule created the Dwarves, they had no soul/freedom until it was given to them by Eru; Melkor sought to take away freedom, and in order to do so he needed to take a piece of himself and seed the item, soul, etc as he did not have the power/ability that Eru has.

Others created, and he perverted. To twist or destroy the thing that his brethren created, he again had to yield part of himself. In later ages his 'power' therefore was still considerable, yet if he were stripped of all of the 'help' and devices that he had seeded, then one would see that his power had declined as it was diluted amongst his servants and slaves.

But, to get back to the original question, all of these seeds became part of the world though having their origin in Melkor.

And I think that JRRT had Lucifer/Satan in mind when he wrote about Melkor as there are many similarities between the two.

[burrahobbit]

No matter how much it might have been diluted, it was still there, and there isn't anything that you can do to change that. That's the point. All you can do is deal with it as it pops up (in your heart).

[alatar]

Originally Posted by burrahobbit

No matter how much it might have been diluted, it was still there, and there isn't anything that you can do to change that. That's the point. All you can do is deal with it as it pops up (in your heart).

Agreed. What I mean regarding 'diluted' is that Melkor gave away pieces of himself so that his 'strength' was diminished. Those who received a seed would then pass it along as able.

So today we may all have a little bit of Melkor in us - nothing like what Sauron got - then again, we are not Eldar, Edain, etc, as our blood has intermingled and thinned.

Some succumb to Melkor's call, others defy it.

[burrahobbit]

Sauron didn't get anything. Melkor didn't make him.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by burrahobbit

Sauron didn't get anything. Melkor didn't make him.

Didn't mean that. Sauron received some instruction from Melkor - learned the 'theme' of Melkor; made his music in accord with that of Melkor and not that of Iluvatar.

Would Sauron have taken the side that he did if Melkor had not led/shown/provided the way? Did Melkor say, "Hey, Maia, check this out/try some of this..."?

[Makar]

Originally Posted by alatar

Would Sauron have taken the side that he did if Melkor had not led/shown/provided the way? Did Melkor say, "Hey, Maia, check this out/try some of this..."?

To me, this raises an even bigger question, about the nature of evil in JRRTs writing. Would Sauron have ever been evil without Melkor? Evil seems such an alien concept to the other Vala that they let Morgoth go after his imprisonment. It seems that can't concieve of why someone would want to commit acts of evil. This leads to the question, why was Melkor evil? Was this part of Iluvatar's plan? If so, why did Eru begin with plans for Melkor and Manwe to be brothers in his mind and why do the other themes seem to have been in response to Melkor's theme?

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Makar

To me, this raises an even bigger question, about the nature of evil in JRRTs writing. Would Sauron have ever been evil without Melkor?

Hard to say. I think that Sauron as a Maia needed a Valar to show the way, yet may have been 'born' with the wiring that allowed him to be easily led astray.

Evil seems such an alien concept to the other Vala that they let Morgoth go after his imprisonment. It seems that can't concieve of why someone would want to commit acts of evil. This leads to the question, why was Melkor evil? Was this part of Iluvatar's plan?

Someone has to pull the trigger. And of course Melkor was part of the plan from the get-go. Assume Iluvatar is an omniscient, omnipresent god. How could anything be unknown to him? Also, as with Aule, Iluvatar did not want robots. And my favorite part of the Valaquenta is where it is stated that Iluvatar makes 'good'' from Melkor's perversions - like snow crystals, etc. Think about how boring Valinor would be without Melkor.

If so, why did Eru begin with plans for Melkor and Manwe to be brothers in his mind and why do the other themes seem to have been in response to Melkor's theme?

If you really want some trouble, go with siblings. For example, my brother and I have gotten into fights over the silliest of things. He knows exactly how to push my buttons, and though there've been times that I've raised my fists to him, I remember that I love him, that's he's my brother, and so he skates (then, as my guard is down, he whips my butt).

Think that like the Greek/Roman gods/goddesses, you have more competition from those at your level, neither parents nor children but siblings.

[King of the North]

Tolkien is very good at encrypting symbolism and meaning in his writing so that the reader has to think. Therefore Melkor (Morgoth) could stand for many things. Being a Roman Catholic I relate Belegurth to Lucifer. Both stories are kind of a fall from grace, Lucifer was once an angel, and Melkor an Ainu (in fact the most powerful, wisest, and cunning). Another similarity is the way in which they were cast away from the good angels/Ainu. Even though the Dark Lord had already seperated from the rest of Great Ones, it was really made official in the Battle of the Powers when Tulkas defeated him. In the battle between Michael (and his angels) and the Dragron (Lucifer), the end result was Satan and all his angels being cast out of heaven like "lightning from heaven" Luke 10:18 NIV. Both battles were battles between Gods, divine beings. There is another explanation for what Melkor stands for though. After experiencing one of the deadliest battles in the whole of WWI (the Somme), Tolkien and others like him needed a new explanation of evil. In his hospital bed, recovering from the Somme, he began writing The Silmarillion and began with the destruction of the beautiful Elven city of Gondolin. Morgoth became the main bad guy, and I think he created a great representation of evil.

[obloquy]

Classifying Melkor as "evil" is questionable. He sought to further his own purposes, and since those were in disharmony with the other themes in the Music they were resisted and this caused strife. What's interesting is that, while the Valar did not know what physical manifestation their music would have, Iluvatar did and still he did not condemn Melkor. Instead he declared that ultimately his will would be accomplished, with Melkor as his instrument.

At this point it had all been laid out for Iluvatar to see. This suggests to me that Melkor had not done anything "evil"--at least in the absolute sense--in the eyes of his father. The corruption of Arda becomes minor on this universal scale, and the "big picture" had not been altered from Iluvatar's original purpose. Melkor, at the time when he had already wrought all his corruption, was above (or outside the jurisdiction of) the concepts of "morality" or "good and bad" that we and the Children of Iluvatar are familiar with and use as guides to make our decisions. Melkor merely resisted the vision of his Creator, which he was created with the will to do and this action was apparently still within his rights. Iluvatar did chastise him, but then made it clear that the beauty of his vision had not been compromised:

In the midst of this strife, whereat the halls of Ilúvatar shook and a tremor ran out into the silences yet unmoved, Ilúvatar arose a third time, and his face was terrible to behold. Then he raised up both his hands, and in one chord, deeper than the Abyss, higher than the Firmament, piercing as the light of the eye of Ilúvatar, the Music ceased.

Then Ilúvatar spoke, and he said: 'Mighty are the Ainur, and mightiest among them is Melkor; but that he may know, and all the Ainur, that I am Ilúvatar, those things that ye have sung, I will show them forth, that ye may see what ye have done. And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined.'

I use the word "questionable" above because I'm not sure how much of this I can buy, myself. There has to be a line drawn. Since Melkor existed both prior to and without Arda, and then subsequently within Arda as well, we have to ask, At what point did his actions become wrong or "evil?" For example, we're sure it was wrong for him to torture Hurin cruelly for years, but at the same time the War of Wrath was woven into the fabric that Iluvatar had seemingly approved of.

[Kuruharan]

For example, we're sure it was wrong for him to torture Hurin cruelly for years, but at the same time the War of Wrath was woven into the fabric that Iluvatar had seemingly approved of.

Maybe Iluvatar approved of the fabric but did not necessarily like all that was in it. Besides, Iluvatar did not have on his happy face by the end of Melkor's little disruption.

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

Maybe Iluvatar approved of the fabric but did not necessarily like all that was in it. Besides, Iluvatar did not have on his happy face by the end of Melkor's little disruption.

Iluvatar takes ownership for all that Melkor contributed, though. The Music did not deviate from his purpose, so did Iluvatar's purpose include "evil"?

No, Melkor wasn't happy about being cut down to size, but he also wasn't damned in any way as he would have been if he had managed to sabotage Iluvatar's purpose.

[Makar]

All of this just complicates the question, I believe. I'm sure the word "evil" is used in Tolkien, but does it just mean "a bad thing" or "a fell deed" and not an action in opposition to an ideal (which is Good)? If everything that happens is part of Iluvatar's plan, then is there no "evil"? Are we to assume that Eru is neither good or evil, but simply is? And therefore, everything that results from his plan/song also just is ? In this case things such as the kinslaying and the burning of the ships would not be considered "evil". However, if this is the case, would Men be able to commit "evil", since their actions reamained unseen or they opperated outside of the bounds of fate (I think that's how it works, correct me if I'm wrong)? Was Sauron "evil"?

[Kuruharan]

but he also wasn't damned in any way as he would have been if he had managed to sabotage Iluvatar's purpose.

I think sabotaging Iluvatar's purpose was beyond Melkor's capacity.

Also:

But Manwe was the brother of Melkor in the mind of Iluvatar, and was the chief instrument of the second theme that Iluvatar had raised up against the discord of Melkor

Iluvatar evidently felt the discord was something to oppose.

I personally don't understand how Iluvatar's actions could be interpreted as favorable toward Melkor's activities. Note that Melkor was filled with shame as if he had been rebuked (which I think he had been).

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

I think sabotaging Iluvatar's purpose was beyond Melkor's capacity.

Obviously. That's the point. All of Melkor's discord did not corrupt Iluvatar's plan, so how can we call it evil without maligning Iluvatar himself? He didn't fix the Music or remove Melkor's contribution.

Iluvatar evidently felt the discord was something to oppose.

He didn't oppose it, he contained it. He humbled Melkor and silenced him when he saw fit, but he did not oppose the theme Melkor had sung. Had he opposed it, he would not have claimed to be its "uttermost source."

I personally don't understand how Iluvatar's actions could be interpreted as favorable toward Melkor's activities. Note that Melkor was filled with shame as if he had been rebuked (which I think he had been).

I'm not saying that Iluvatar favored Melkor's discord, but I am saying that it was permitted and within Melkor's rights.

[Kuruharan]

That's the point. All of Melkor's discord did not corrupt Iluvatar's plan, so how can we call it evil without maligning Iluvatar himself? He didn't fix the Music or remove Melkor's contribution.

-and-

I'm not saying that Iluvatar favored Melkor's discord, but I am saying that it was permitted and within Melkor's rights.

Yes, that's what I've been saying. However, if it is part of some rights given to Melkor, then Iluvatar is not at fault for them.

[Maédhros]

From the Quenta Silmarillion

§31 Thus spake Mandos in prophecy, when the Gods sat in judgement in Valinor, and the rumour of his words was whispered among all the Elves of the West. When the world is old and the Powers grow weary, then Morgoth, seeing that the guard sleepeth, shall come back through the Door of Night out of the Timeless Void; and he shall destroy the Sun and Moon. But Eärendel shall descend upon him as a white and searing flame and drive him from the airs. Then shall the Last Battle be gathered on the fields of Valinor. In that day Tulkas shall strive with Morgoth, and on his right hand shall be Fionwë, and on his left Turin Turambar, son of Húrin, coming from the halls of Mandos; and the black sword of Túrin shall deal unto Morgoth his death and final end; and so shall the children of Húrin and all Men be avenged.
§32 Thereafter shall Earth be broken and re-made, and the Silmarils shall be recovered out of Air and Earth and Sea; for Eärendel shall descend and surrender that flame which he hath had in keeping. Then Fëanor shall take the Three Jewels and bear them to Yavanna Palúrien; and she will break them and with their fire rekindle the Two Trees, and a great light shall come forth. And the Mountains of Valinor shall be levelled, so that the Light shall go out over all the world. In that light the Gods will grow young again, and the Elves awake and all their dead arise, and the purpose of Ilúvatar be fulfilled concerning them. But of Men in that day the prophecy of Mandos doth not speak, and no Man it names, save Túrin only, and to him a place is given among the sons of the Valar.

One of the things that I find most interesting about this discussion is what happens to Melkor. It seems to me that he was playing his rôle in this affair of making Arda what it was supposed to be.
Not only did Melkor enrich Arda in the material sense, Arda remade being better than Arda Unmarred, but he ultimately enriched the story of the world. Can you imagine the history of Arda without his plans and machinations?
I wonder about the fate of Melkor. In this prophecy it is stated that he meets his end, but I wonder if that means if Melkor is destroyed and ceases to exist or is just that Melkor as Morgoth is defeated and he could be reborn or remade as Arda has?
Could there not be a place for a reformed Melkor in Arda or outside of it with Ilúvatar?

[Kuruharan]

Melkor is destroyed and ceases to exist or is just that Melkor as Morgoth is defeated and he could be reborn or remade as Arda has?
Could there not be a place for a reformed Melkor in Arda or outside of it with Ilúvatar?

Unanswerable question. Insufficient data.

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

Yes, that's what I've been saying. However, if it is part of some rights given to Melkor, then Iluvatar is not at fault for them.

You're right, I'm not saying Iluvatar's at fault. I'm saying Iluvatar apparently doesn't think it's a fault at all. Melkor's discord was woven into the Music and overpowered all other themes, but Iluvatar still claimed that the Music fulfilled his will. Therefore, how can we say that Melkor's discord was evil? If Iluvatar created everything, he was responsible for everything's opposite. On this tier of immaterial existence, there is no real way to qualify "evil" or "good," unless we define evil as the resistance to God's will. In our world, yes, that works, depending on what you believe. But in Ea it's different because Iluvatar claimed to be the uttermost source of Melkor's work, and that work, dissentious as it was, would bear out His own purpose and glory nonetheless.

[Eruanna]

why was Melkor evil? Was this part of Iluvatar's plan?

If we see Melkor and the other Valar as aspects of Iluvatar, then it makes sense that there has to be evil in order to create balance with good, perhaps Melkor was simply fulfilling his purpose.

Arda remade being better than Arda Unmarred, but he ultimately enriched the story of the world. Can you imagine the history of Arda without his plans and machinations?

This is an interesting point, Maédhros. Sometimes good comes out of evil. Certain things, like wars for instance, are thought of as bad things, but throughout history we can see that times of war have also been times of invention and innovation in both technology and medicine.

[alatar]

What I've never understood is how an omniscient omnipresent infinite God could be considered 'good.' Doesn't that seem to place a limit on or anthropomorphize something beyond our understanding?

Melkor was obviously evil once he came to Arda, but beforehand I would have to agree with others that technically he wasn't, though he was in discord with Iluvatar. Was this pre-Arda discord because of pride, which is considered to be evil (discord - pride - evil)? Was he 'evil' because he failed to harmonize with the others, and maybe even worse, because he also silenced others, limiting their freedom?

And it should be plain to see that if Iluvatar wanted to remove Melkor from the theme that he could have easily done so at any time; therefore I would say that Melkor was a necessary part of the plan.

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.'

[Maédhros]

From the Published Silmarillion

But as the theme progressed, it came into the heart of Melkor to interweave matters of his own imagining that were not in accord with the theme of Ilúvatar, for he sought therein to increase the power and glory of the part assigned to himself. To Melkor among the Ainur had been given the greatest gifts of power and knowledge, and he had a share in all the gifts of his brethren. He had gone often alone into the void places seeking the Imperishable Flame; for desire grew hot within him to bring into Being things of his own, and it seemed to him that Ilúvatar took no thought for the Void, and he was impatient of its emptiness. Yet he found not the Fire, for it is with Ilúvatar. But being alone he had begun to conceive thoughts of his own unlike those of his brethren.

This has always interested me. Why would only Melkor feel this way among the Ainur? Why does he has that innate curiosity that the others lack?
From Morgoth's Ring: Myths Transformed

Melkor must be made far more powerful in original nature (cf. 'Finrod and Andreth'). The greatest power under Eru (sc. the greatest created power). (He was to make/ devise / begin; Manwë (a little less great) was to improve, carry out, complete.)
Melkor 'incarnated' himself (as Morgoth) permanently. He did this so as to control the hroa, the 'flesh' or physical matter of Arda. He attempted to identify himself with it. A vaster and more perilous, procedure, though of similar sort to the operations of Sauron with the Rings. Thus, outside the Blessed Realm, all 'matter' was likely to have a 'Melkor ingredient', and those who had bodies, nourished by the hroa of Arda, had as it were a tendency, small or great, towards Melkor: they were none of them wholly free of him in their incarnate form, and their bodies had an effect upon their spirits.

I had always thought that Melkor strayed from his path. To me at first, he was the one to have become like the great architect of the making of Arda, while the other Valars put their touches here and there. But now I think that perhaps I was mistaken.
Perhaps a world like that was to be flawed, perhaps it was that the reason that Melkor had such other ideas unlike his brethren.
What if Melkor's devise to make begin, was not meant for Arda but for Arda Remade? Consider, Melkor "incarnated" his power to the flesh of Arda, leaving no choice but to make it anew. With all of his interference he enriched the overall history of the world and that of Men, so that they should be an integral part of the remaking of Arda. By having struggles in Arda, wouldn't that make in the end the joy of victory that much sweeter?
If the only part of Arda was Valinórë, which had no Melkor ingredient on it, and yet Men could not live there and it was a constant source of grief in Men, would that not be wrong. Perhaps that is what Melkor saw and that is what led him to his ways. Perhaps Arda Remade was the way that all of the beings could live in perfect harmony together and Melkor was the one who began it all.

[Celebaglar]

As one of the Ainur, Melkor could create new life (correct me if I am wrong). In his jealousy when he looked down on Arda, he created (unwillingly?) a putrid creature named ungoliant. How did the rest of the Ainur not know of its creation or see it? What would they do to it or Melkor if they did?

[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.

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by alatar

What I've never understood is how an omniscient omnipresent infinite God could be considered 'good.' Doesn't that seem to place a limit on or anthropomorphize something beyond our understanding?
...

Good post, and it echoes my feelings on the definitions of good and evil. 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. Since Melkor and the rest of the Valar were installed as creators and gods of Arda, they had a similar right to do what pleased them without moral constraint. As far as I can remember Iluvatar does not provide a moral structure to guide their actions, apart from his direct communication with Manwe. Morality is designed to guide physical beings. Similar to the Biblical account of the origin of the demons, once Melkor incarnates himself and begins to break the moral laws of the Incarnates, he is no longer above those laws and is then subject to condemnation.

Edited multiple times to correct egregiously bizarre grammar.

[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

[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 )

[Celebaglar]

Originally Posted by alatar

Melkor was obviously evil once he came to Arda, but beforehand I would have to agree with others that technically he wasn't, though he was in discord with Iluvatar. Was this pre-Arda discord because of pride, which is considered to be evil (discord - pride - evil)? Was he 'evil' because he failed to harmonize with the others, and maybe even worse, because he also silenced others, limiting their freedom?

No Melkor was not evil in the beginning. Melkor was in my oppinion to ambitious, he wanted power and to make things he believed in his mind to be good. He could be labelled as smarter than the rest of the ainur, for he thought independantly, and when he was shunned for his originality or difference, that is when he began to grow 'evil' as we know it, by disdaining the restrictions as his power as one of the ainur. My post seems a little strange, but i thought of how it might be from Melkors view. I believe he can be compared most accurately to a human as a Hitler type of person, he allowed his jealousy to grow out control into hatred.

[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.

[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!).

[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...