Íluvatar's opponents?

[Aratlithiel]

This brings me back to my intial view that, having created beings with free will, it was up to those beings to determine the fate of Arda. In that sense, it might be said that Eru has no opponents because he is not "playing the game". He set it in motion, but then stood back and let the beings he created battle it out.

I like that - very succint. I need to take composition lessons from Saucepan Man.

[Jurion]

I think that Eru is above good and evil, the beings who follow him are good and those who rebel against him are evil. But by being evil, they still serve Eru's plans, for he created everything.

So if you rebel against him you can still make beautiful things, for example, Melkor, in his rebbelion, created ice and cold, but ice and cold can be beautiful too.

[aragornreborn]

Phew, I'm back.

Clearly, personal beliefs add (often immense) value to the discussions, but let's remember that we are discussing a work of fiction.

I know. I’m flirting with getting off topic. But, in my opinion, there isn’t a whole lot of information about Eru in Tolien’s works so I’m delving into what perhaps Tolkien meant for Eru to be because of his Catholic beliefs. If we’re going to go solely on what was written, it might be harder to discuss. But perhaps that was Tolkien’s purpose. I know he didn’t like allegory. And maybe he didn’t want his Eru to resemble a particular god aside from vague similarities. Sorry, I’m thinking aloud. OK, on further reflection, I realize I have been delving into Tolkien’s beliefs more than his writings which is wrong. So, from henceforth I will speak of what is written about ME concerning this thread.

(I must warn you that I minored in Theological Studies so if you ask for it, you'll get it with both barrels!).

Well, I’m quite simple, so I wouldn’t mind if we kept this to mere mortal standards. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Doesn't perfection imply kindness and mercy as well as omniscience? If Eru created a being who had so little will to resist the Ring, how could he possibly punish that being for succumbing to the very weakness he created in it? ... Not to mention, of course, that every bit of this totally negates the concept of free will.

When Eru’s creations were bestowed with free will, they now had the responsibility to obey Eru (i.e. do good). If they did not have free will, Eru would have simply made them obey. But, since Eru has given them free will, he expects them to obey, anyway. I think it’s an equal trade-off. They have freedom but also responsibility. So, they are expected to be loyal to Eru, but are given the choice of whether to follow through with that expectation or not. If they decide to rebel, that is a conscious, deliberate decision. In Middle Earth, evil does not have control over anyone unless they allow it to control them. Gollum never HAD to kill Deagol and take the Ring. He could have said, “Hey, cool Ring!” and left it at that. But, he made a deliberate and conscious decision to take that Ring for himself. The very definition of free will is to be able to make your own decisions, so I think the argument that some creatures were too weak-willed to abstain from evil is not true. If they have free will from Eru (in a sense), than they also have free will from evil. Also, to respond to something you said earlier, perfection demands justice over kindness and mercy.

I do not agree with you, aragornreborn, that they are punished by Eru for giving into evil, but I do agree that they had a choice not to give into it and ended up making the wrong choice. They therefore suffer the inevitable consequences of that failure.

Well, the Valar who are under Eru’s control and most likely in this respect his direct orders will throw Melkor into the eternal abyss or whatever it is that’s awaiting him. So, I think that Eru does punish his creations for doing evil. He may use other instruments to inflict that punishment (i.e. the Valar, a man, a guilty conscience, or slippery stones!). Evil is clearly not condoned in Middle Earth, and in order for Eru to be just, he must punish evildoers.

This brings me back to my intial view that, having created beings with free will, it was up to those beings to determine the fate of Arda. In that sense, it might be said that Eru has no opponents because he is not "playing the game". He set it in motion, but then stood back and let the beings he created battle it out.

I like to compare Eru with a father (which he is). As a father, you want to give your children freedom so they can grow. But, you also know what’s good for them. If they are doing things that are wrong or harmful, you want and should intervene because you care for them and care for what is right. When Eru gave his creations free will, he wanted them to still adhere to his principles which are inherently good because of his perfection. Thus, because he is a god who cares for his creations and is just, he must demand that they obey. He wants to give them as much freedom as possible, but if they abuse that freedom, he may intervene either personally or through his messengers.

My this has turned out to be an interesting expedition. [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]

[aragornreborn]

I think that Eru is above good and evil, the beings who follow him are good and those who rebel against him are evil. But by being evil, they still serve Eru's plans, for he created everything.
So if you rebel against him you can still make beautiful things, for example, Melkor, in his rebbelion, created ice and cold, but ice and cold can be beautiful too.

That's assuming that evil was created by Eru which goes against the whole holy god thing. Beautiful and good aren't the same things, either. This is a terrible example, but I'm tired and it's the only one I can think of right now. I could make a beautiful weapon, but that doesn't mean I couldn't do evil with it. Also, just because someone is evil doesn't mean they can't make anything beautiful, it just means they can't do anything good (if they are wholly evil).

[Eru]

it just means they can't do anything good (if they are wholly evil).

do you mean their intentions aren't good? or they are incapable of doing anything good at all? nothing? i mean, saruman was evil through and through, but when he wrecked the shire, the hobbits made it more beautiful then before. saruman wanted to take revenge, but through his work, it only made things more beauiful. the same can be said of Morgoth. but morgoth was much wiser than saruman, and he wrecked alot more havoc. but, he still made some things more beautilful than before.

iluvatar obviously had a plan from the begining. he dwelt alone until he made the Ainur, who made Music for him. no one else existed until then. and the Ainur were made from Iluvatar thoughts.

i hope that made sense. anyways, what i guess i'm trying to say is that Iluvatar is the ultimate goodness. he has a hand in everything. even if indirectly. example: whenever Manwe had to make an important decison, he delved deep inside him self where iluvatar's thought/will was.

[The Saucepan Man]

When Eru’s creations were bestowed with free will, they now had the responsibility to obey Eru (i.e. do good). If they did not have free will, Eru would have simply made them obey. But, since Eru has given them free will, he expects them to obey, anyway. I think it’s an equal trade-off. They have freedom but also responsibility. So, they are expected to be loyal to Eru, but are given the choice of whether to follow through with that expectation or not.

But that isn't really free will. If Eru says to his creations: "OK, you can have free will, but if you exercise it wrongly, then I'm going to stop you" then in reality, they do not have an unfettered free will.

aragronreborn, your analogy to a parent is a good one. Parents exercise a degree of control over their children while they are minors. Those children do not have an unfettered free will because they are constrained in what they can and can't do. But, when those children reach adulthood, they are free to make their own choices and, in doing so, are no doubt influenced by the way that they were brought up. While their parents may seek to guide them, they no longer have any direct control over their children's lives.

So, in the act of creation, Eru was like a parent, imbuing his creations, which at that time had no free will, with certain values. When creation was complete, he gave his creations free will. He could no longer directly influence them. It was up to them whether they adhered to the values he had instilled in them or rebelled against those values. He could only guide them ,as a parent of an adult, for example through the Istari.

[aragornreborn]

do you mean their intentions aren't good? or they are incapable of doing anything good at all?

What I mean is that if someone is purely evil (Morgoth, Sauron, and Saruman) then they can do no good whatsoever. They may perform acts of beauty, but not goodness. Also, in my opinion, intentions are an inherent part of deciding if something is good. So, even if someone did a "good" thing such as defending someone from an attacker, if he did it for his own gain instead of out of compassion then it is still wrong.

[ January 26, 2003: Message edited by: aragornreborn ]

[aragornreborn]

But that isn't really free will. If Eru says to his creations: "OK, you can have free will, but if you exercise it wrongly, then I'm going to stop you" then in reality, they do not have an unfettered free will.

So, in the act of creation, Eru was like a parent, imbuing his creations, which at that time had no free will, with certain values. When creation was complete, he gave his creations free will. He could no longer directly influence them. It was up to them whether they adhered to the values he had instilled in them or rebelled against those values. He could only guide them ,as a parent of an adult, for example through the Istari.

I do not believe that Eru stops his creations from exercising their free will all the time or even often, or even at all as you see later (I, too, am discovering things as I post). To get back to my parent illustration (one of my few instances of semi-intelligence), one of the best ways a parent can instruct his child is to let the child learn from experience. Sometimes, however, the parent wants to keep a child from making an incredibly bad mistake, so the parent may intervene. So, Eru may fetter free-will, at times. I don't know. But, (I'm liking this theory better)Perhaps the confusion lies in the meaning of free-will. Free-will is just what it sounds like free-will. That is, Eru's creations have the power to make their own decisions (will), but that does not mean that Eru will allow those decisions to affect His plan. He can allow his creations to make their own decisions, but then use his divine power to fix their mistakes. If Eru's creations were allowed complete free-will where Eru was not allowed to intervene, then Eru would no longer be omnipotent or the one in charge. So, perhaps Eru does not fetter free-will, but he just might clean up a few mistakes here and there. Yes, I do like that theory much better. Gollum takes ring (bad choice. free-will). I suppose Eru could have caused Gollum to not take it in the first place, but that would have violated Gollum's free will. Instead, Eru used his power to set things right in the end because Gollum met his doom and got rid of the ring, anyway. Also, I believe that Eru's creations are stil Eru's children. They are still referred to as the Children of Illuvatar, I believe.