Let's Talk Morgoth

[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

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

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.

I have to disagree with you there. Orcs are a part of Arda and are therefore relevant to any discussion concerning the nature of its ultimate Creator and His realtionship with good and evil. One might seek to explain them, but one cannot dismiss them.

The explanation most consistent with the theological and moral tone of the Legendarium, I suppose, is that Orcs were mere beasts or automatons, rather than a sentient and free-willed race of beings. But I have never been able to accept this proposition as it is wholly at odds with my conception of Orcs, particularly those whom we meet as individuals, as derived from Tolkien's published works.

And yet they do seem only to have limited free-will. There is no suggestion that Orcs were able to choose between good and evil, and indeed the clear indication is that they were unable to act in any way other than evilly.

Which does, I think, raise a valid question as to why Eru saw fit to countenance the creation, and continued existence, of a wholly evil race that had no opportunity of repentance (during their lives, at least).

[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.

[alatar]

Thanks all for the great feedback!

Originally Posted by Formendacil

There is a major difference between a cow and a man, that of free will. A parable is an imprecise way of explaining things, intended not to be taken at 100% face value.

Very much agreed, and this is why I find it interesting when limits are placed on something classified as a 'god.' We are limited to 4 dimensions and yet speak of subtleties of an N-dimensional being. And so again, what do the labels 'good' and 'evil' mean to something that it outside of time and space? Though his brethren saw him as evil, did Eru see Melkor as a necessary component, increasing the overall 'good' of the universe? Is this like a twist on the Second Law of Thermodynamics where local pockets of evil are tolerated as the overall good increases?

Originally Posted by Formendacil

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.

As pointed out by The Saucepan Man, I would say that the orcs are part of the argument. If we assume that they were originally elves, then how were the Eru-implanted souls removed? Did Melkor have the ability or permission to do this? What happened to these souls? If the orcs are soulless creatures, then how do they function? Aule's Dwarves needed his constant guidance until Eru endowed them with free will. Or we can assume that the orcs are like any other sentient beings in ME, yet due to some original taint, always choose the darkness (and maybe the Professor didn't know that anyone would have so much time on their hands to think about all of this ).

Originally Posted by Formendacil

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?

What do I know of Eru's plans? Without Ungoliant, we would not have Beren and Luthien. And not to go off topic too much, but what about Judas, Pharoah, Nero? God created and used these people to further his plan.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Besides which, anyone who is truly evil is someone who REJECTS God entirely.

Disagree. Sauron was going with the guy who had a different, bolder theme - Eru just didn't get it that some changes needed to be made for the greater 'good.' And off topic, you are speaking of the Christian God. Consider pantheism, and then is evil rejecting a particular god or gods?

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

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).

So why do I chose to serve Melkor or Eru? All evidence is hearsay. Each side promises a reward. Both sides play by different rules, yet this may be necessary. Eru says that Death is a gift, yet is doesn't seem that way to men. Elves get to 'know' whereas Edain must have 'faith' in regards to what happens after death. Where is the evidence? Melkor and Sauron were brethren of these demi-gods, who speak for the One, and those two may or may not be representative of the whole bunch. Who's to know? Edain ancestors were drowned by the same, heard that*the Elves left one of the 'heavens' after scrapping with the Valar. Hmmm...

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

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.

Again, where does this leave the orcs as to me they seem to have wills of their own? One may assume from ROTK where, when the Ring goes into the Crack, that the Mordor army, bereft of Sauron's controlling will, goes nutsy as they need some other will to keep them orderly. However, I would point out that the orcs that were hoping to break away and set up on their own were endowed with some free will and were not automatons. How was the "built-in standard" removed?

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Which does, I think, raise a valid question as to why Eru saw fit to countenance the creation, and continued existence, of a wholly evil race that had no opportunity of repentance (during their lives, at least).

Could Melkor have repented? During the ages that he was bound, nothing much happened in Arda worth note. Did Eru make sure that he would be released in order to 'get things going again?' Why did the 'Good' allow Melkor to go free? And I'm supposed to trust these beings' judgements/wisdom?

Originally Posted by davem

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.

Agreed about the rules. He told the Valar, "here's the game - have at it!" And though I would agree that Melkor may have changed someone's blueprint for Arda, he did not change Eru's unless Eru permitted the same.

Originally Posted by davem

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.

Didn't think about that - thanks. Still, assume that I'm an average shmoe - no big sins, just choose the wrong side of the balrog wings debate, which ends up sending me to Hell. How can I assume that the god who sent me there was 'good?' I will spend a very finite drop of eternity in the 'choosing' phase, and the remainder in punishment. Great system. (by the by, no wings! )

Originally Posted by davem

But this is getting off topic, as there is no hell or eternal damnation in Middle earth.

Agreed. I have been trying to limit my comments to ME, but some points are made more easily using other sources. Not sure if the rest of you do, but I find ME more black and white than the real world. There is evil and there is good. The side to choose is pretty clear.

Thanks for the brain workout and for tolerating my ramblings.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

I have to disagree with you there. Orcs are a part of Arda and are therefore relevant to any discussion concerning the nature of its ultimate Creator and His realtionship with good and evil. One might seek to explain them, but one cannot dismiss them.

The explanation most consistent with the theological and moral tone of the Legendarium, I suppose, is that Orcs were mere beasts or automatons, rather than a sentient and free-willed race of beings. But I have never been able to accept this proposition as it is wholly at odds with my conception of Orcs, particularly those whom we meet as individuals, as derived from Tolkien's published works.

And yet they do seem only to have limited free-will. There is no suggestion that Orcs were able to choose between good and evil, and indeed the clear indication is that they were unable to act in any way other than evilly.

What I was saying is that the orks cannot be presented as strong evidence in this argument one way or another, with regards to a forgiving/condemning Eru, because we do not know their origins and their degree of free will.

If they do not have free will, then how is it wrong/unjust to condemn them? And as you note, there is conflicting evidence about how free the orks wills are exactly. Even Tolkien couldn't make his mind up.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

What I was saying is that the orks cannot be presented as strong evidence in this argument one way or another, with regards to a forgiving/condemning Eru, because we do not know their origins and their degree of free will.

I would say that, on the basis of "pure" canon alone (ie the works published by Tolkien during his lifetime), the evidence points strongly towards Orcs being a sentient race with limited free will - ie lacking in the ability (or, at a stretch, the environmental conditions) to choose good.

You are, of course, free to dismiss Orcs as a factor in your thinking on this issue, but that does not make them irrelevant to the discussion, at least as far as those of us who have a reasonably settled view on the nature and origins of Orcs (based on the published works) are concerned.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

If they do not have free will, then how is it wrong/unjust to condemn them?

Well it certainly seems to me to be unjust to condemn them for something (their evil nature) which they have no choice in. Even assuming that they have the opportunity of redemption following their death, it is wrong that they should be condemned to a life of evil and brutality without having any choice in the matter. Thus I find it problematic that Eru should countenance such a thing.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Well it certainly seems to me to be unjust to condemn them for something (their evil nature) which they have no choice in. Even assuming that they have the opportunity of redemption following their death, it is wrong that they should be condemned to a life of evil and brutality without having any choice in the matter. Thus I find it problematic that Eru should countenance such a thing.

Okay, to put it another way, the origin of the orks is tied not only to the issue of whether they have free will or not, but also whether they have souls. More or less, I would say that it appears plain that if the orks have true free will, they must also have a soul. If so, then yes we come to a confusing muddle of whether it is just to condemn all orks as evil.

On the other hand, if orks do not have free will, and thus a soul, there is not problem in condemning them as evil, because they are essentially the same as animals, and not destined for eternity in any way, shape, or form.

[HerenIstarion]

Alatar, when you talk about orks which are not automata, I suppose you imply Shagrat and Gorbag (and also Ugluk and Grishnakh), are you?

How was the "built-in standard" removed?

In case of free-willed ork exeptions, it is not. They exhibit the standard - evaluating good and bad in a way similar to one elves or men would follow, labeling certain things bad and immediately ascribing them as inherent to their enemy:

The big fellow with the sharp sword doesn't seem to have thought him worth much anyhow – just left him lying: regular elvish trick

But, almost instantly, we're shown that in fact, they themselves, though acknowledging one, do not follow the code:

D'you remember old Ufthak? We lost him for days. Then we found him in a corner; hanging up he was, but he was wide awake and glaring. How we laughed! She'd forgotten him, maybe, but we didn't touch him-no good interfering with Her

Following after Pet Shop Boys I'm listening to at the moment, I may hum (as is a good feat for a deadnight chanter) under my nose 'it's a sin...'

See also All About Orks

[obloquy]

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?

Not every Christian believes that the reward for the "good" is Heaven and the punishment for the "bad" is Hell. This particular Christian happens to believe that it is more indicative of a loving, just god that he punishes the wicked by simply denying them life, rather than tormenting them.

Edit: Additionally, yes, it would be "fair" if that's how he chose to do it. He is the source of our sense of justice and fairness, and whether it is an inherent part of our creation or something we learn, it is based on his definition (and example) of justice. He has the ultimate say on the matter.

As far as the Tolkien-related side to this thread, alatar has sort of taken my torch and ran with it so I think I'll leave him to it.

[davem]

Originally Posted by SpM

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.

Well, He had obviously foreseen His own intervention from the beginning, so it was not a spurof the moment decision....

Originally Posted by Alatar

Still, assume that I'm an average shmoe - no big sins, just choose the wrong side of the balrog wings debate, which ends up sending me to Hell. How can I assume that the god who sent me there was 'good?' I will spend a very finite drop of eternity in the 'choosing' phase, and the remainder in punishment. Great system. (by the by, no wings! )

This assumes that God would damn someone to eternal punishment for something trivial. I know there is a strand of extreme fundamentalist Christianity which says that rejecting Jesus as one's personal saviour will result in eternal damnation, but personally I think God is a lot smarter (as well as a lot more compassionate) than that, & that His judgement would be based on looking into the individual's heart. I would go so far as to say that the way some fundamentalists behave is enough to lead many to reject Christianity altogether, but I don't think God would base 'His' judgement on a decision made on those grounds. The 'god' that you have in mind here would,to put it bluntly, not be 'Good', & everything you've said about him would be valid. Personally I don't think God (or Eru) is like that...,

Your freedom to choose anything requires your actual existence - as I said. Yes, you could only end in Hell if you were brought into being, but equally, you could only find Heaven. If 'Hell' is not a place of eternal punishment, but rather of non-being, then you have a free choice - you may choose to accept God, or to reject Him & cease to exist - as you apparently would have wished rather than suffer eternal punishment. So, you do get to choose - you, not God choosing for you. You get to try it out first, make your decision & get the outcome you desire for yourself.....

Agreed about the rules. He told the Valar, "here's the game - have at it!" And though I would agree that Melkor may have changed someone's blueprint for Arda, he did not change Eru's unless Eru permitted the same.

Well, Eru handed over the blueprint but others were left to build what it depicted. There is a deeper question to be dealt with here: Was it necessary for all the suffering & struggle to be gone through as a way of bringing about Arda remade. Did Eru have to allow His Children to get all that stuff 'out of their systems', in order to 'grow up'? Certainly He intervenes, but only occasionally, & only to prevent absolute disaster. Certainly, when He does intervene it is both rare & reluctant. He seems to actually want His children to be free - even if great suffering results for them. Another question is whether that makes him callous, amoral, or extremely loving...

Originally Posted by SpM

Well it certainly seems to me to be unjust to condemn them for something (their evil nature) which they have no choice in. Even assuming that they have the opportunity of redemption following their death, it is wrong that they should be condemned to a life of evil and brutality without having any choice in the matter. Thus I find it problematic that Eru should countenance such a thing.

Why is this problematic. Orcs play their part in the cosmic drama & after death are able to see the truth & make a decision as to their moral stance & Eru's judgement of them would be based on that.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

Alatar, when you talk about orks which are not automata, I suppose you imply Shagrat and Gorbag (and also Ugluk and Grishnakh), are you?

Sorry, but can't remember to which I refer (and as Essex well knows, I still haven't reclaimed my books...). Weren't there orcs that were tired of war and desired to get out of Mordor, and another admonishes the one regarding rebel talk or sticking with their own kind (and not the wraths) or something?

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

But, almost instantly, we're shown that in fact, they themselves, though acknowledging one, do not follow the code:

They survive by being very pragmatic and individualistic. Why try to save the spider-food orc when it could only mean more losses? The Little Folk and Bree folk seem more than ready to allow someone else to fix the problem of Sauron - passing by the man on the side of the road, if you catch my allusion. And one might say that the other Free folk are only doing some heavy lifting as it is in their best selfish interests.

And with such a code there were no inter-Free folk wars, slayings, injustices, etc.

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

Following after Pet Shop Boys I'm listening to at the moment, I may hum (as is a good feat for a deadnight chanter) under my nose 'it's a sin...'

Ever hear the line from Depeche Mode's Strangelove, "...I give in, to sin, because I like to practice what I preach." One of my favorites.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Okay, to put it another way, the origin of the orks is tied not only to the issue of whether they have free will or not, but also whether they have souls. More or less, I would say that it appears plain that if the orks have true free will, they must also have a soul. If so, then yes we come to a confusing muddle of whether it is just to condemn all orks as evil.

On the other hand, if orks do not have free will, and thus a soul, there is not problem in condemning them as evil, because they are essentially the same as animals, and not destined for eternity in any way, shape, or form.

Well, as I said, the evidence suggests to me that they (or at least some of them) were sentient, which suggests to me that they had souls, even if their free will was limited. But why is it just to condemn beasts to a life of brutality and suffering? Do lives not matter to Eru if they don't have souls?

Originally Posted by davem

Why is this problematic. Orcs play their part in the cosmic drama & after death are able to see the truth & make a decision as to their moral stance & Eru's judgement of them would be based on that.

It is problematic because they still have to live out their lives (and quite possibly some of them were "immortal" in the same way that Elves are) in a state of evil being without them having any choice in the matter. Why should they be denied "worldly" choice, when it is enjoyed by the other races of Arda?

Well, He had obviously foreseen His own intervention from the beginning, so it was not a spur of the moment decision....

But it was not part of his plan, since that did not anticipate Melchor's rebellion. Which suggests that he is able to change his plan where necessary. So, to return to alatar's point, he could have intervened to prevent Melchor's tainting of Arda (and foreseen that) if he wished. To do so would have involved interfering with his gift of free will to Melchor, yes, but no more so than his later interventions with regard to those affected by them.

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by alatar

They survive by being very pragmatic and individualistic

I suppose, Tolkien intended the conversation I provided you with excerpts of was written to show that orks (exceptional ones, those who had free will about them) were crooked. Otherwise, why say that leaving one's companion in trouble is bad, and than behave in an opposite way? If survival was what counted and was approved of, Shagrat and Gorbag would have praised 'big elf warrior' for what they thought he did. 'Clever chap, that warrior, he did exactly what is vital for survival', that kind of thing.

EDIT

to SpM. We just cross-posted. One thing in your post caught my eye:

Originally Posted by SpM

But why is it just to condemn beasts to a life of brutality and suffering? Do lives not matter to Eru if they don't have souls

That's why we have taint of Morgoth in the matter of Arda concept. The chain is as follows:

All matter has a bit of Morgoth in it - all matter will be unmade in the end - orks (but for exceptions) are made of matter, therefore they also will be unmade in the end. So human and elven bodies will be destroyed in the end. It does not follow life does not matter for Eru. He created it, after all No justice involved, just necessity.

For one, nothing temporal may be eternal. For two, nothing of Morgoth will last

As for exceptions, I could not find it at the spot (your archivist is getting older, you see), but I remember arguing elsewhere that none of orks in LoTR who have a hint or even slightest trace of will and individuality about them are treated as 'mere matter'. I believe it is author's intention as well - to have Shagrat and Gorbag kill each other, to have Grishnakh killed by stray arrow, to have Ugluk fought by Eomer on foot and alone, though it would have been as easy to have him shot from the horseback and so forth.

Originally Posted by SpM

To do so would have involved interfering with his gift of free will to Melchor, yes, but no more so than his later interventions with regard to those affected by them

More so. Interventions always follow the pattern of natural events - Numenor is drowned in a flood which might have been caused by a chain of perfectly natural events, Gollum falls because of another chain of events, ring was found by Bilbo because of third chain of events etc. Besides, interventions do not suspend the free will of doers, they correct/change consequences of their doings

Melkor's abilities included ability of tainting a matter. Denying him such an ability, I suppose, could not have been done following 'chain of events' pattern. It would have invloved direct forcible removing of ability = direct suspense of free will = against the rules Eru sets himself = can not be done

Third - intervention will take place - the Arda will be remade. That is the greatest intervention of them all. For us, it haven't happened yet, but Eru is outside time. It may be (if the concept that God lives in eternal 'now' be correct) that for him, the moment of creation happens at the same time as moment of redemption. It is from our perspective, from the inside of time, that we may ask quesitons of the 'why haven't He done that, or this'. For all we know, all necessary things have been done, we haven't reached them yet in time.

Besides, it was already mentioned, that knowing things does not equal affecting them. I know the moon moves by an orbit around the earth. Based on certain calculations, I can bet you a dollar it will move likewise tomorrow. I know the fact beforehand. Yet, my possession of the data does not affect said orbit in no way at all


END OF EDIT

[davem]

Originally Posted by SpM

It is problematic because they still have to live out their lives (and quite possibly some of them were "immortal" in the same way that Elves are) in a state of evil being without them having any choice in the matter. Why should they be denied "worldly" choice, when it is enjoyed by the other races of Arda?

How much absolute freedom of choice does any race (or individual) actually have. The freedom of choice of every individual is limited by circumstances. Hence any judement of them would be made with this taken into account.

But it was not part of his plan, since that did not anticipate Melchor's rebellion. Which suggests that he is able to change his plan where necessary. So, to return to alatar's point, he could have intervened to prevent Melchor's tainting of Arda (and foreseen that) if he wished. To do so would have involved interfering with his gift of free will to Melchor, yes, but no more so than his later interventions with regard to those affected by them.

Not part of His original plan, certainly. Whether that plan ever actually changed is open to question. Surely its possible that that 'ideal' concept never changed & is the blueprintg for Arda Remade. Eru's interventions are intended, perhaps, to steer Arda Marred towards the form of the original plan. Yet, Arda Remade will not be an exact manifestation of the original plan, as Eru has given both free will & the capacity to sub-create to his creatures.

I still say that Eru's (rare) interventions are to prevent absolute disaster, to pull Middle earth back from the brink. Eru intervenes, & to that extent takes away (temporarily) his gift of free will, but only when it is necessary to protect his children from being completely destroyed. Hence, though He may have felt great pain at the creation of Orcs, their existence was not a threat to the survival of Middle earth, so he let that part of the Music continue. And even if orcs retain the 'immortality' they had as Elves, in the context of eternity, which is the perspective from which Eru views things, it is only a phase of their existence.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by obloquy

Not every Christian believes that the reward for the "good" is Heaven and the punishment for the "bad" is Hell. This particular Christian happens to believe that it is more indicative of a loving, just god that he punishes the wicked by simply denying them life, rather than tormenting them.

A Catholic who knows and believes what his/her church teaches does, including both myself and the good professor, but that's hardly the point. If there is any point, it is that this is where I am coming from in writing what I have.

Originally Posted by alatar

Still, assume that I'm an average shmoe - no big sins, just choose the wrong side of the balrog wings debate, which ends up sending me to Hell. How can I assume that the god who sent me there was 'good?' I will spend a very finite drop of eternity in the 'choosing' phase, and the remainder in punishment. Great system. (by the by, no wings! )

Well, at least we agree on the Balrog wings. You have a hope of salvation!

Okay, I'm just joking!!!

Or perhaps, not quite...

Hope. There is always the HOPE of salvation, the belief that a merciful God will forgive. The only person to whom heaven is totally and utterly denied is to he who utters rejects God. To all others, there is the hope of heaven, and the hope not ending up in Hell. This is the concept of divine mercy, which goes hand in hand with that of divine justice.

After all, if only the truly unrepentant go to Hell, then surely only the great saints can be said to have come close to achieving Heaven. Here is where the Catholic dogma of Purgatory comes in. Purgatory is the place of PURGING, of cleansing the soul so that it is cleaned of sin and ready for Heaven.

No person will be condemned to Hell for not having had the opportunity to join the Church (primitives, people who never heard of it, unborn babies, people before Christ), nor will those who have tried to lead a good life according to what they know and/or believe (Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Proddies, atheists, etc... )

No offence is intended by the above, just a more or less blanket statement that Catholics believe that all people who try to lead a good life have a real hope of Heaven. Even Balrog-Wingers!

Perhaps along the same lines one can view the orks.

Supposing that the average ork, having never heard anything of good, having been trained by birth and genetics to do evil, and whose entire environment is one that encourages evil, is brought before Eru in judgement. What then? If you consider Iluvatar to be one and the same as God (the premise on which I am basing more or less all of my arguments thus far), then would Iluvatar condemn the ork to eternal hellfire?

I personally think that Iluvatar would look at the ork's life, at how he lived, and then look deep into his soul. Iluvatar then learns whether or not the ork rejects His forgiveness and mercy, or whether it rejects it.

(Remember that this is in the afterlife, beyond the circles of the world after the destructio of Arda, so the ork is no longer blinded by prejudices of any sort, by the constraints of his physical form, or anything of that nature. His choice is completely his own, not influenced by any factor).

If the ork accepts forgiveness, then comes Purgatory, and the "Purging" of the ork's soul, to the point it the once-ork is now in an Elf-state, and able to join in singing Iluvatar's praises in Arda Remade.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

It would have invloved direct forcible removing of ability = direct suspense of free will = against the rules Eru sets himself = can not be done

I am sure that he could have come up with suitably indirect interventions to achieve the same aim. After all, his interventions in the Third Age effectively denied Sauron of all his abilities without requiring direct action against Sauron himself.

Originally Posted by davem

I still say that Eru's (rare) interventions are to prevent absolute disaster, to pull Middle earth back from the brink.

Well, I would say that Melkor's tainting of Arda was pretty disastrous. As I recall, he never intervened once to obstruct Morgoth's various attempts at world domination, whereas he intervened a number of times to foil Sauron's plans. Is this favouritism, or were the inhabitants of Arda somehow less well equipped to deal with Sauron themselves than they were with Morgoth?

Originally Posted by davem

How much absolute freedom of choice does any race (or individual) actually have. The freedom of choice of every individual is limited by circumstances.

Yes, free will is necessarily constrained by circumstances, physical geography, environment etc. But the limitation on the Orcs' freedom of choice goes much further than this. They appear to have been denied the opportunity to choose good under any circumstances. If it was just down to their upbringing, I would still expect a small, but significant, proportion of Orcs to reject evil, just as some brought up in a moral and caring environment will nevertheless turn bad.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

I personally think that Iluvatar would look at the ork's life, at how he lived, and then look deep into his soul. Iluvatar then learns whether or not the ork rejects His forgiveness and mercy, or whether it rejects it.

Well that's fine for the putative good Orc after he has died. But he still has to behave evilly, and suffer accordingly, throughout his life - which (Eru's perspective notwithstanding) will seem a very long time to him.

Perhaps it's because I have no firm belief in the afterlife that I find it difficult to accept that a life of (inescapable) brutality and suffering is acceptable as long as one can look forward to redemption in the hereafter. But it does seem to me from what you are all saying that Eru places greater value on the afterlives of the beings of Arda than on their actual lives. And he seems not to value non-sentient (ie soulless) beings at all.

[davem]

Originally Posted by SpM

Well, I would say that Melkor's tainting of Arda was pretty disastrous. As I recall, he never intervened once to obstruct Morgoth's various attempts at world domination, whereas he intervened a number of times to foil Sauron's plans. Is this favouritism, or were the inhabitants of Arda somehow less well equipped to deal with Sauron themselves than they were with Morgoth?

How would you have wished Him to intervene against Morgoth - given that there was no 'quick fix' option (ie destroying of a Ring)? It seems to me that the difference between his direct intervention in the Third Age & his non-intervention in the First is that the Valar were strong enough to deal with Morgoth themselves, & it was a battle of opposing forces. The result did bring devastation to most of Beleriand as a consequence, though. In the Third Age, no one individual could have taken the Ring to the Fire & cast it in of their own free will. Hence it was a matter of Eru stepping in & achieving the Quest, or allowing Middle earth to be taken over by Sauron or his replacement. Eru intervenes because no-one else can do the task at hand.

Yes, free will is necessarily constrained by circumstances, physical geography, environment etc. But the limitation on the Orcs' freedom of choice goes much further than this. They appear to have been denied the opportunity to choose good under any circumstances. If it was just down to their upbringing, I would still expect a small, but significant, proportion of Orcs to reject evil, just as some brought up in a moral and caring environment will nevertheless turn bad.

Surely the Orc will be judged with the very constraints you point out in mind. Less would be expected of the Orc than of a man, Elf or Hobbit. In other words, because of their more privileged position, & the fact that 'goodness' would be a far easier prospect for members of those races, they would have to struggle just as hard (relatively) as Orcs.

Perhaps it's because I have no firm belief in the afterlife that I find it difficult to accept that a life of (inescapable) brutality and suffering is acceptable as long as one can look forward to redemption in the hereafter. But it does seem to me from what you are all saying that Eru places greater value on the afterlives of the beings of Arda than on their actual lives. And he seems not to value non-sentient (ie soulless) beings at all.

Well, we're speaking about Middle earth here, so 'a life of (inescapable) brutality and suffering is' (perhaps) 'acceptable as long as one can look forward to redemption in the hereafter'.

As to Eru placing greater value on afterlives than on lives the only difference between the two is the presence or absence of a hroa...

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

It seems to me that the difference between his direct intervention in the Third Age & his non-intervention in the First is that the Valar were strong enough to deal with Morgoth themselves, & it was a battle of opposing forces.

Presumably, however, if the worst had come to the worst and Sauron had regained the Ring and extended his dominion over the entirety of Middle-earth, the Valar would have been just as capable of defeating him. Did Eru simply want to avoid the destruction that Beleriand had suffered in consequence of just such a thing happening in the First Age?

But surely Eru would have foreseen the damage that Beleriand did suffer in the First Age. Assuming that he did, why did he not take steps to prevent this by means of the simple expedient of (indirectly) ensuring that the Valar did not release Morgoth once they captured him. He would have foreseen that Morgoth had no intention of repenting.

Well, we're speaking about Middle earth here, so 'a life of (inescapable) brutality and suffering is' (perhaps) 'acceptable as long as one can look forward to redemption in the hereafter'.

The Orc still has to suffer more, with no choice in the matter, in consequence of the simple fact that he happened randomly to be born an Orc. Or perhaps being born an Orc is not a random event ...

[alatar]

I would not agree that Eru directly intervened during the Third Age; that's seems a bit overkill. He could have jumped in the game many times during the 'Morgoth years,' yet did so only rarely. When he did intervene, it was for some big thing like changing the layout of Arda.

Just what does divine intervention mean in regards to free will and playing by the rules? Manwe et al should have let Arda burn as eventually Eru would have had to jump in. What does this mean in regards to faith and personal responsibility? If I can force the hand of Eru ("here Sauron, here's your Ring back...okay Eru, do your stuff"!), what does this say about Eru's status/power? And what faith do I need if I know that Eru will only let the game go so far before joining in to catch me up. Was then Melkor right to oppose this thinking? How can one grow if not tested to the limit? I have to 'do my job' as I'm never sure if the eagles are coming or not.

Did not the Valar, who could have easily defeated Sauron, send the Istari so that they would not have to get involved directly? Wasn't that one of the problems with the Elves (direct intervention) where good intentions led to a lot of strife? Eru/Manwe/something may have at most nudged things along a bit, but that would be the extent of 'divine intervention.' Could Eru's intervention be the creation of Hobbits, of which two end up taking down Sauron?

Gandalf, of the same kind as Sauron, was permitted only to use his powers when absolutely necessary - as stated previously, usually to allow for fair game play (Gandalf the referee? ) - yet I guess that Eru can have free rein in ME (then again, it's his so...). Saruman was a contender for the seat, yet was destroyed by beings of ME, not Valar nor Eru.

Also, to presume Eru's intervention diminishes the roles/sacrifices of Frodo et al.

[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.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Ainaserkewen, I'm not sure. I've not checked up on passages referring to Lucifer for a while. But I do not think so. Lucifer means "Son of the Morning", he was given power over the earth and its creatures. I do not think he was a quire angel (But please do correct me if I am wrong). I'm almost certain he was an Arch Angel, if not higher. I know he was once The TOP angel.

But back on topic.

The way i see this whole thing is that Morgoth/Melkor was from before the beginning of creation, going to be evil. There has to be an evil presence in the world, so that mankind (and indeed, elf kind) has a real choice. Between loving God as their creator and father, or rejecting him and turning to evil.

The Story of the Dwarves is where I feel this is most emphasised. Eru says something along the lines of, that if Aulé had left the dwarves as they were, then they would have been nothing more than Robots. Born with no knowledge of anything else than to love their creator. Free will is given, to decide between temporary happiness in Evil and eternal suffering thus, and eternal Happiness in God for a temporary period of suffering.
So, in conclusion, Melkor was made evil in order to give men and elves (and hobbits!) the chance to chose between good and evil. So that they could see the difference and have a real choice. That way, if they chose to love Eru, it is real love and not artificial and not forced.

That's what I think. Feel free to criticize.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by alatar

Also, to presume Eru's intervention diminishes the roles/sacrifices of Frodo et al.

Not if one assumes that Eru can only intervene indirectly and in circumstances where not to do so would result in the complete victory of those seeking to oppose his will notwithstanding the best efforts of those on the side of good. Although that still leaves open the question of whether the "hand of providence" at Sammath Naur fell within this "Rule" since, even if Sauron prevailed in the face of the best the endeavours of Frodo et al, the Valar could presumably still have sailed east and defeated him. Could it therefore be said to have represented a complete victory on Sauron's part?

Of course, if we do assume that Eru is bound by this "Rule" (whatever its extent) then it must have been self-imposed, since the existence of a being greater than him would run contrary to Tolkien's conception and portrayal of him.

Edit:

Originally Posted by Hookbill

So, in conclusion, Melkor was made evil in order to give men and elves (and hobbits!) the chance to chose between good and evil. So that they could see the difference and have a real choice.

This picks up an alatar's idea that Melkor's fall was part of Eru's plan for Arda. As I understand it, this is similar in some ways to some interpretations of the role of Judas in the Bible (although I am no expert). My problem with this is that it makes Melkor the "fall guy" and condemns him to an existence of evil and terrible suffering without him having any choice (ie free will) in the matter. Which seems at odds with the portrayal of Eru's apporach to creation and with the idea of him as a just and good God.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Hope. There is always the HOPE of salvation, the belief that a merciful God will forgive. The only person to whom heaven is totally and utterly denied is to he who utters rejects God. To all others, there is the hope of heaven, and the hope not ending up in Hell. This is the concept of divine mercy, which goes hand in hand with that of divine justice.

Agreed. Where do non-theists fit in (i.e. do not reject God as they do not think that there even is a god)?

Originally Posted by Formendacil

After all, if only the truly unrepentant go to Hell, then surely only the great saints can be said to have come close to achieving Heaven. Here is where the Catholic dogma of Purgatory comes in. Purgatory is the place of PURGING, of cleansing the soul so that it is cleaned of sin and ready for Heaven.

Not to debate Christianity too much, but the concept of 'works' and 'purging' negate the need for Grace (and therefore the sacrifice of Christ).

Originally Posted by Formendacil

No person will be condemned to Hell for not having had the opportunity to join the Church (primitives, people who never heard of it, unborn babies, people before Christ), nor will those who have tried to lead a good life according to what they know and/or believe (Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Proddies, atheists, etc... )

No offence is intended by the above, just a more or less blanket statement that Catholics believe that all people who try to lead a good life have a real hope of Heaven. Even Balrog-Wingers!

That's called 'univeralism.' Is that a Roman Catholic doctrine? I would contend that that's not found in the Christian Bible.

And what worse torture for Melkor! After fighting your whole life against Eru, Manwe etc, you now are forced to make nice and join every else in Paradise ("Sorry about the sister thing, Turin. Sorry about the sword thing at the Dagor Dagorath, Morgoth. <kisses and hugs>").

Anyway, I would have to say that Eru was not a universalist (if there is such a word) in that not all end up in Paradise. All may have the opportunity to go, yet free will allows for some not to go. Free will = choice. I've left the orcs out of all of this as we have yet to pin down the extent of their choices.

Orcs and other baddies go to the Void, and others go to some other afterlife. After Dagor Dagorath, not sure where all of the baddies will end up, but I'm sure that it won't be a party. Nonexistence?

Is the Dagor Dagorath the 'last chance to repent?' At that time can everyone elect to change sides, and after the big game, share the fate of the side of their choice? Would this pre-game time be when good-natured orcs ("he killed the villagers before he sat down to eat them - there's a mark in the plus column...") turn to Eru and by their choice are given some kind of redemption? Do they become Elves again?

[Ainaserkewen]

Ainaserkewen, I'm not sure. I've not checked up on passages referring to Lucifer for a while. But I do not think so. Lucifer means "Son of the Morning", he was given power over the earth and its creatures. I do not think he was a quire angel (But please do correct me if I am wrong). I'm almost certain he was an Arch Angel, if not higher. I know he was once The TOP angel.

Like anything in the Bible, it is certainly up for deliberation. I don't, however, have exact references, though I'm sure if I ask I can get them.

It was a seminar I attended that preached the dangers of some music. Don't ask me what I thought of it, but one of the points was the Lucifer was "lead singer" of the angels. At its lowest levels, that means he was "Top angel". My point is that all this trouble in middle-earth and Melkor's upity-ness was started by singing. I'll try to find some referrences to back this up, but I do trust my original source.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Ainaserkewen

My point is that all this trouble in middle-earth and Melkor's upity-ness was started by singing.

It's the all the fault of 'Rock and Roll' again!

[davem]

My understanding is that as time wore on & the things predicted in the Music came more & more into being the Valar had less & less power to change things directly & were forced into being more & more 'passive. Hence, no direct intervention in the Third Age - they only comissioned the Istari. Added to this, the events of the Third Age are to usher in the time of the dominion of Men & the fading of the 'mythological' period. As to why Melkor's release was permitted, Osanwe Kenta goes into this (don't have it to hand at the moment) but I seem to recall that Manwe had set the time of his incarceration & so had to go along with what he had ordained, & had to give Melkor the chance of repentance which that incarceration was intended to offer. Manwe was,after all King of Arda, & for Eru to over rule him would have effectively humiliated him. So, Melkor's release & all taht followed from it was necessary,as Eru's intervention would not only have taken away Melkor's free will but Manwe's also.

Eru's intervention at the Sammath Naur is subtle, & the event may be seen as a fluke - Gollum simply overbalances - by those who wish to see it that way. So, the individuals - men basically - who will come to dominate the Fourth & subsequent ages, are granted even more 'freedom of choice' in that they don't have to believe in Eru at all. A blatant intervention would have taken that freedom away. So Eru intervenes subtly. Obviously a direct intervention by the Valar themselves in the form of an invasion force would not only have taken that freedom away it would also have increased the likelyhood of they themselves being taken for Gods & becoming objects of worship themselves by men -hence the likelihood of polytheism becoming the religion of Middle earth, rather than monotheism. What I mean is that Monotheism as an idea would have been less likely to arise at all.

As to Melkor, certainly Eru would have known the coices he would make & the effect those choices would have on Middle earth, but he wasn't created to rebel, merely with the capacity so to do - but so were all the other Ainur.

Of course, this opens up another can of worms - if Melkor hadn't rebelled, & thus created an alternative to Eru's divine plan, would one of the other Ainur have rebelled instead? What I mean is, Melkor's rebellion sets out an alternative & therefore introduces choice into the 'game'. At that point the Ainur have to decie whose wide they are on. If Melkor hadn't done that, would one of the other Ainur have started wondering about 'alternatives' & hence become 'Dark Lord' instead.

The Ring springs to mind here - if Sauron doesn't get it back & someone else claims it we end up with another Dark Lord. It seems, maybe, that there is a tendency for Dark Lords to be produced...

I do wonder where that 'tendency' originated...

[drigel]

Melkor's rebellion sets out an alternative & therefore introduces choice into the 'game'.

I was beginning to wonder when this idea was going to be presented. Orc's being redempted, elves turning to evil... interesting tangents that lie outside of the music. It is mankinds fate to balance on the knife's edge every waking day of their life that choice. Melkor embodies or represents this to me. But there is no redemption for M - only the long wait for the Last Battle..

[Maédhros]

Eru's intervention at the Sammath Naur is subtle, & the event may be seen as a fluke - Gollum simply overbalances - by those who wish to see it that way.

I would like to know how can you be so sure that it was Eru's intervention and not just mere luck.

Of course, this opens up another can of worms - if Melkor hadn't rebelled, & thus created an alternative to Eru's divine plan, would one of the other Ainur have rebelled instead? What I mean is, Melkor's rebellion sets out an alternative & therefore introduces choice into the 'game'. At that point the Ainur have to decie whose wide they are on. If Melkor hadn't done that, would one of the other Ainur have started wondering about 'alternatives' & hence become 'Dark Lord' instead.

I don't agree with this. How can anyone know that because Melkor rebelled that it was an alternative Eru's plan?
I see it in a different view than most. People tend to look at what Arda became as the way the Plan unfolded. I just think that that was only a process that eventually led to Arda Remade which was the true End or Arda so to speak.
If Melkor or another Ainur had rebelled or without any rebellion, I believe that in the End the Arda Remade in the Melkor intervention would have been the same as if other or no intervention, but the specific path into which it evolved would have changed entirely.
And did Melkor really rebelled?
Ilúvatar gave him the powers and the freedom to use them as he saw fit. It was his right to act as he saw fit, as where the other Ainur.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by alatar

Agreed. Where do non-theists fit in (i.e. do not reject God as they do not think that there even is a god)?

Not to debate Christianity too much, but the concept of 'works' and 'purging' negate the need for Grace (and therefore the sacrifice of Christ).

I would put non-theists with all others. A separate category for them is unnecessary.

Originally Posted by alatar

That's called 'univeralism.' Is that a Roman Catholic doctrine? I would contend that that's not found in the Christian Bible.

And what worse torture for Melkor! After fighting your whole life against Eru, Manwe etc, you now are forced to make nice and join every else in Paradise ("Sorry about the sister thing, Turin. Sorry about the sword thing at the Dagor Dagorath, Morgoth. <kisses and hugs>").

I think you might be misinterpreting what I said. I did NOT say that everyone will get into Paradise, only that everyone has CHANCE. It is NOT Catholic dogma that everyone will kiss, make up, and go to heaven, but Catholic doctrine does not say that people will automatically be condemned to hellfire for having been born before Jesus, in an un-evangelised society, etc, etc. Nor will people who live in accordance with God's law as best they are able, such as non-Catholic believers (ie. Jews, Protestants, Muslims, et. al) see their efforts go to waste.

That said, ultimate judgement falls on God, as does the exercise of His mercy. I do not think that all will granted mercy, but the condemnation is greater on those who KNEW what was expected of them, and still did wrong.

Originally Posted by davem

Of course, this opens up another can of worms - if Melkor hadn't rebelled, & thus created an alternative to Eru's divine plan, would one of the other Ainur have rebelled instead? What I mean is, Melkor's rebellion sets out an alternative & therefore introduces choice into the 'game'. At that point the Ainur have to decie whose wide they are on. If Melkor hadn't done that, would one of the other Ainur have started wondering about 'alternatives' & hence become 'Dark Lord' instead.

I would have to say "No. It was not NECESSARY for Arda that one of the Ainur fall and become the Dark Lord."

Even had Iluvatar gone ahead and made Arda, and none of the Ainur had rebelled, there would still be free will for the Children of Iluvatar. There would still be rules that could be broken.

The exercise of free will would still be necessary to chose to obey divine law, or to reject it in favour of self-gratification. The difference is that there would be no mighty tempter, no Dark Lord whose goal was to spread evil. Therefore, evil would not be so prevalent in Arda as it was with Melkor, and it would not have had the same dominance over Man and Elf that it does.

The possibility of rejecting Eru and His laws would remain, but it would be a much less likely thing to happen, without someone pushing it, and corrupting the matter of Arda to proneness towards discord and chaos.

Remember, this is Arda MARRED, in Tolkien's own words. Therefore, that implies that there was, or was intended to be, an Arda UNmarred. Therefore, in Iluvatar's original plan, there should have been NO Dark Lord, thus if Melkor had not gone bad, it would not have been necessary for someone else to step up to the Dark Lord plate.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Maedhros

I would like to know how can you be so sure that it was Eru's intervention and not just mere luck.

You can't - that's the point. If you could know definitely one way or the other it would have a too deterministic effect on your freedom of belief.

And did Melkor really rebelled?
Ilúvatar gave him the powers and the freedom to use them as he saw fit. It was his right to act as he saw fit, as where the other Ainur.

No, it wasn't his right to act as he saw fit - certainly he had the ability to do as he saw fit, but being able to do something is not the same thing as having the right to do it. The Nazis were able to murder 6 million jews in the death camps, but I don't think anyone (in their right mind) would argue that they had a right to do it. He was created to serve. Any powers he had came from Eru & were given with the intention that he would use them in His service. Melkor misused his 'power'. Its like, if I let you use my car to take a sick friend to the hospital, & you dump the person by the roadside, sell the car & go on holiday with the proceeds. Being in possession of the car means you have the ability to do that, but you certainly wouldn't have the right to do it.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

The possibility of rejecting Eru and His laws would remain, but it would be a much less likely thing to happen, without someone pushing it, and corrupting the matter of Arda to proneness towards discord and chaos.

You've sidetracked me into wondering whether, because there is no Me Bible or Quran, 'Good' & 'evil' have to manifest in rather 'extreme' forms so that they're quite plain & understandable to everyone. There seems to be something of an absence of theologians arguing over the minutiae of their subject in Me. People only have what's in their hearts, a kind of 'innate' understanding of what is 'Good' & what is 'evil' & their experience of good & evil in the world - ie no Ten Commandments, no clearly set out 'rules', no religious imperatives (accept Jesus as your personal saviour or Else!, accept Muhammad as the final prophet of God or Else!, etc etc)

What I mean is the inhabitants of Me have to come the 'Truth' through personal judgement based on their experiences, not by accepting or rejecting the 'word of God'.

This is pure speculation & has just occurred to me, so I'm not it makes complete sense...

[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

What I mean is the inhabitants of Me have to come the 'Truth' through personal judgement based on their experiences, not by accepting or rejecting the 'word of God'.

This is pure speculation & has just occurred to me, so I'm not it makes complete sense...

Makes sense to me, but you might want to get a second opinion as I may be nuts...

Anyway, regarding relevation: The elves had direct access to the 'divine,' and so they have no need for faith. Galadriel was in Valinor, so what are the chances that she may have doubts regarding the existence of Manwe et al? As far as she is concerned, the Valar are 'cousins.' She knows what will happen if she were to be slain, and also what awaited her when she took the last ship.

Orcs are basically smart animals - as we have not yet produced a valid argument that would allow for them to have free will - and so there is no need for revelation. As far we know, when orcs die they become worm food. No afterlife - nothing. There is the possibility that as they are on the 'evil' side that they may suffer some punishment after all is sung and done, but this is mere speculation.

Men (and Hobbits) are somewhere in the middle. In the past there has been revelation to certain individuals, and purportedly one man (Eärendil) made a sacrifice to redeem the world or something. The elves have provided information (second hand) yet estrangement has placed doubts. The Enemy also has muddied the waters regarding Eru, the other divines, etc.

During a golden age, men were much closer to the 'source,' yet this did not remove all doubts. As the island containing evidence regarding the same was drowned in a flood, information is scant and sketchy.

Also, for men the afterlife is uncertain. Even the elves, assuming that their information is correct, do not know what happens, though the oldest tales tell of man leaving the confines of Arda, something that the other races cannot do. Melkor has added fear to this information.

Due to past screw-ups wih the elves, the Valar avoid direct contact with men, and so any additional revelation is indirect and at times open to interpretation.

So it would seem that men, having no certain knowledge or revelation, are required to take leaps of faith. One can choose to be like the elves and believe that it's all true, or live like an orc, figuring that a worm's gullet is the final destination.

I assume that this was deliberate on JRRT's part.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by alatar

Orcs are basically smart animals - as we have not yet produced a valid argument that would allow for them to have free will - and so there is no need for revelation.

I would have thought that the behaviour exhibited by the likes of Shagrat, Gorbag, Ugluk, Azog and the Great Goblin, not to mention the existence of "quasi-independent" Orcish colonies and the development of an Orcish culture of sorts (songs, distinctive weaponry etc), provide a valid basis for arguing that they (or some of them at least) were higher than animals and had a degree of free will, whether or not one actually accepts that argument.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

I would have thought that the behaviour exhibited by the likes of Shagrat, Gorbag, Ugluk, Azog and the Great Goblin, not to mention the existence of "quasi-independent" Orcish colonies and the development of an Orcish culture of sorts (songs, distinctive weaponry etc), provide a valid basis for arguing that they (or some of them at least) were higher than animals and had a degree of free will, whether or not one actually accepts that argument.

I would say that they do have free will - with the exception of ever being able to choose 'good.' For my argument posted previously, I have them having already 'chosen,' and so they no longer feel the need to reconsider/repent. Still, orcs are a bit murky.

Elves would be more 'spiritual' and orcs more 'animal/physical.'

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by davem

You've sidetracked me into wondering whether, because there is no Me Bible or Quran, 'Good' & 'evil' have to manifest in rather 'extreme' forms so that they're quite plain & understandable to everyone. There seems to be something of an absence of theologians arguing over the minutiae of their subject in Me. People only have what's in their hearts, a kind of 'innate' understanding of what is 'Good' & what is 'evil' & their experience of good & evil in the world - ie no Ten Commandments, no clearly set out 'rules', no religious imperatives (accept Jesus as your personal saviour or Else!, accept Muhammad as the final prophet of God or Else!, etc etc)

I would say that, to a certain extent, Arda DOES have Bible/Quran of sorts: the Valar, in specific, Manwe and Mandos.

Think about what the Bible is to Christians: God's inspired words and laws, given to his prophets and apostles, put into written form.

Think about what the Quran is to Muslims: God's inspired words and laws, spoken to the Prophet Muhammed, put into written form.

God (Eru's) inspired words and laws in Arda do not need to be put into written form because there are living (and undying) receptacles of His words and laws, namely the Valar, especially Manwe and Mandos. Why write down what is contained, perfect, in a mind with speech?

The Elves, living in Valinor as those with the written word did, had no need. And once they came back to middle-earth and spread the tengwar, they were in rebellion, and not likely to write up the Gospels of Manwe and Mandos. This tendency then gets passed on to the Numenoreans, and all others who inherit the true knowledge of the Valar.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Alatar

The elves had direct access to the 'divine,' and so they have no need for faith.... So it would seem that men, having no certain knowledge or revelation, are required to take leaps of faith. One can choose to be like the elves and believe that it's all true, or live like an orc, figuring that a worm's gullet is the final destination.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

God (Eru's) inspired words and laws in Arda do not need to be put into written form because there are living (and undying) receptacles of His words and laws, namely the Valar, especially Manwe and Mandos. Why write down what is contained, perfect, in a mind with speech?

The Elves, living in Valinor as those with the written word did, had no need. And once they came back to middle-earth and spread the tengwar, they were in rebellion, and not likely to write up the Gospels of Manwe and Mandos. This tendency then gets passed on to the Numenoreans, and all others who inherit the true knowledge of the Valar.

But having direct knowlege of anything negates the need for faith - you don't need to have faith in known facts. I would argue that the Elves' direct knowlege of the Valar actually takes away their freedom of thought & perhaps even restricts their creative expression - why is there no Elvish fiction? (something I've asked before). Why don't they sub create 'secondary worlds'? Men, not having direct knowlege, can speculate on different possibilities, alternative realities, whereas Elves (the High Elves specifically) simply know the way things are. Perhaps this is what leads them to seek to 'embalm' rather than attempt to change the world around them. They know too much about the way things are & the way things were/are intended to be. They work to make the world conform to Eru's blueprint because they are actually limited by their nowlege. Men, on the other hand, not having direct access to such 'facts' are free to speculate on possibilities & examine all the options.

Of course, as Aragorn says, Men must judge as they always have - there is a sense of 'right' & 'wrong' which is innate to the Eruhini, but it is a sense in Men & is not so specific that it limits what they feel there is any point in doing. Both Men & Elves are attempting (if they are true to their own deep sense of right & wrong) to do the will of Eru, but Men are freer to think 'outside the box'& so may actually bring into being new things which, while not 'outside' the scope of the original Plan, were perhaps not specifically predicted by it.

I think this is perhaps the difference between Melkor & the Eruhini - the latter, for all their failings, are attempting to conform themselves to the will of Eru (again - when they do what they know is right), whereas Melkor was attempting to subvert & change the original plan. The Eruhini willed the Right whereas Melkor willed the 'wrong'. Both may have failed in many ways (the Eruhini causing suffering & destruction, Melkor, despite himself bringing about some good ), but they would be judged on their intent.

Again, just throwing out ideas as they occur - feel free to pull them apart...

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

But having direct knowlege of anything negates the need for faith - you don't need to have faith in known facts.

Although even the High Elves had only indirect knowledge of Eru. They were one step removed, so the requirement for faith on their part was limited to trusting what the Valar told them of him. All other Elves, along with Men and the other races were two or more steps (many more in the Third Age in the case of all but some of the Elves) removed.

[drigel]

Why don't they sub create 'secondary worlds'?

I would submit that Lorien would be considered a 'secondary world', created by Galadriel. Since, by the time of her coming to those woods, and the time hence, there is nothing like it in all of ME. Though it is a reflection, or memory, of an earlier unstained time, it is "something apart" from the rest of ME, and is (for lack of a better word) "removed" from the linear timeframe that those woods are surrounded by.

An expression of elvish 'faith', as it were....

[davem]

Originally Posted by Drigel

I would submit that Lorien would be considered a 'secondary world', created by Galadriel. Since, by the time of her coming to those woods, and the time hence, there is nothing like it in all of ME. Though it is a reflection, or memory, of an earlier unstained time, it is "something apart" from the rest of ME, and is (for lack of a better word) "removed" from the linear timeframe that those woods are surrounded by.

It is a kind of 'secondary world' but not in the sense of, say, Middle earth (from our perspective),or the Star Wars universe - ie a 'fiction', an invention, a world that never existed which had been made up by an artist. As you say, Lorien was an attempt to recreate rather than sub-create.

Originally Posted by SpM

Although even the High Elves had only indirect knowledge of Eru. They were one step removed, so the requirement for faith on their part was limited to trusting what the Valar told them of him.

Well, I'd say the High Elves had a choice between monotheism (if they believed what the Valar told them about Eru) or polytheism (if they didn't). They wouldn't have had the choice of atheism, as they were aware of the 'fact' of the existence of supernatural beings.

[Maédhros]

You can't - that's the point. If you could know definitely one way or the other it would have a too deterministic effect on your freedom of belief.

But the point is that we cannot say that every action that turned out for the good of ME was a direct intervention of Eru. Gollum fell and that an intervention of Eru. Frodo had pity for Gollum and that was an intervention of Eru.

No, it wasn't his right to act as he saw fit - certainly he had the ability to do as he saw fit, but being able to do something is not the same thing as having the right to do it.

It is interesting but as I see it, the more Melkor acted as he saw fit, the more he wanted to make Arda his (in a way) in the End, he was making a greater Arda for Ilúvatar. So in the moment of his actions were not "good" but in the end, it turned out to be the best.