Eru letting Melkor go..

[Elendur]

I may have missed the reasoning in The Silmarillion, but I don't see why Eru let Melkor go into Arda. He knew Melkor's mind and he had foresight so he knew what was going to happen. So why would he let Melkor go when it ruined Arda so much? I know Eru told Melkor that anything he did would only make his creation more beautiful, such as the making of snow, frost, and fire, but overall Melkor's influence on Arda was very bad and not worth the few things he gave to it. I have been wondering about this for a while.

[Thingol1000]

Man,thats a good one, and more of a general religous question, but here goes my two cents;
Eru obviously knew what Melkor would do and intended to use Melkor's influence as a watershed of the soul (fea??) Since Eru knew that the elves fate would be on Aman, then Eru intended Melkor's influence to "define" the Edain. Melkor's influence was part of the pre-existing landscape of ME, and the Edain had to navigate around it, or founder and be pulled down by it.

[thorondil]

That is a complex question and one fraught with peril. Its like why would God let Satan loose on the earth to cause evil?

As you said, it was part of the One's grand Purpose, of which I am ignorant. In my mind the whole thing is a metaphor of Good triumphing over Evil. Evil leads to ugliness, decay, and death...but the pure heart even in the darkest fire is purified like gold and shines brightly.

Also it shows that pride leads to folly and everyone who would be a Dark Lord (Morgoth, Sauron, Feanor, Ar-Pharazon, Saruman...et al) even in the smallest way, falls into ruin and only achieves Eru's greater End.

I'll go ahead and bite, and put a few questions out there...

I think that deep with in us, we all long for a sort of utopia...that perfect place with no tears, pain, fear. Just beauty, love...etc. Which is a bigger topic than just Tolkien.

Without darkness, could we enjoy, understand, appreciate the light?

Without the storm, would the calm mean as much?

Without evil, would "good" be so, well, good?

Perhaps Eru, in his wisdom, knew that in order for creation to have deeper freedom, there was need for Melkor and the evil that he brought. Creation was suddenly given a choice...although it sounds strange...they were not "enslaved" to good. They were able to chose Eru and the way of the Valar, or Darkness and the way of Melkor.

?

[Salocin]

Melkor's influence was part of the pre-existing landscape of ME, and the Edain had to navigate around it, or founder and be pulled down by it.

Without darkness, could we enjoy, understand, appreciate the light?

Without the storm, would the calm mean as much?

Without evil, would "good" be so, well, good?

Perhaps Eru, in his wisdom, knew that in order for creation to have deeper freedom, there was need for Melkor and the evil that he brought.

These opinions of God/Eru make him up to be a monster. What kind of God would set the world op for suffuring? Only a malitious God which most of us would agree caracterizes neither God nor Eru.

You guys are looking at it the wrong way.
This:

Creation was suddenly given a choice...although it sounds strange...they were not "enslaved" to good. They were able to chose Eru and the way of the Valar, or Darkness and the way of Melkor.

is more on track.

God could create a perfect Utopia were a bunch of mindless zombies always did good. Even a good programmer can do that. Instead God created something much more increadible. He created a world were people had free will. If you really look at it free will is an increadible thing. But in order for people to have free will people can choose to follow the purpose of the creator (good) or not (bad). Neither Melkor nor the Devil "created" evil. Neither did God. It was not preasent before the creation of the world like God was. It is mearly an opposite. In the same way that darkness is an absense of light and cannot be created and did not exist before the creation of light (it could not be defined with out light) so evil is an absence of good, cannot be created and did not exist before there were people to do, or not do, good.

Melkor/the Devil was given free will just like every body else, he was just the first to not do good (ie. do bad) he thought his own purposes were better than God's. Some of what you guys said made it sound like Melkor, at least, was predestined to be evil so as to provide an obsticle for the children of Illuvaltar so as to "weed out" the bad one's.

Hmmm...Salocin. I have to admit to feeling a bit misunderstood, however, I do see how what I wrote could be miscontrued (sort of). But in essence, you and I are saying the same thing.

Eru created beings with free will. Including Melkor...it was not said that Eru set up the world for suffering. You're right, that would be a monster. However, Eru, the first, not only had the power to create, but also the power to see what would be. He allowed Melkor and thus evil to endure...allowing for free will. I don't think he created men and elves in order to "weed out the bad ones". It seems more probable that he created them and placed them in an environment where they could live in what he intended - by their own choice.

And in actuality, Melkor was part of the pre-existing landscape of Middle earth. He was created and was corrupted before the children of Illuvatar came to be. They were born into a world where they had to choose.

It was in the midst of this world that the calm, the light...became more meaningful.

I believe that Eru was heartbroken when Melkor rebeled. I believe that he hated it when some of the elves abandoned the world he created for them. And more importantly, I believe he hated what was done to Middle earth and the suffering that was wrought through Melkor.
null

[tangerine]

Eru said after the Song had finished that even through Melkor's discord, Eru's original plan would triumph and even become more beautiful. I think he was letting Melkor find that one out for himself. Which he, eventually, did.

Remember how in the music of the Ainur, there was a theme made by Eru, that was sweet, and immeasureably sad? Then remember Melkor's theme, in which it was overbearing and without depth? Well, it said that Eru's theme incorperated the best parts of Melkor's theme into it's own.

I think that'd be a good explanation.

[thorondil]

I agree about free will, but free will with an omnipotent Creator is a tricksy thing. Wouldn't God know in advance when he created you exactly what your decisions would be?

And wasn't the Music already written out like one big orchestral piece? If I remember correctly some of the Valar knew some of the future...they had seen (or heard) it in the Music.

[Guildo]

well remember the Sweet is not as Sweet without the Bitter, Eru is GOD we are Talking about......

Could you imagine a world with nothing to fight for.

hope you understand what im trying to say.

[Salocin]

I agree about free will, but free will with an omnipotent Creator is a tricksy thing. Wouldn't God know in advance when he created you exactly what your decisions would be?

Free will is a tricky thing, but here is how I understand it:

God knows the future in the sense that he knows the end he intends and several events along the way that are "required" to achieve the end. Eru song showed what he new had to happen because he was going to make those thing happen no matter what. Middle Earth would be created. The first and second borns of Illuvaltar would awake and live in this land. He did not know that Melkor would fall nor what he would do. This can be seen since the Silmarilion says that Eru incorporated the best of Melkor's music into his own. If He already knew what Melkor's music would be he would have already incorporated it. It can also be noted that in the vission Eru revealed to the Valar of middle earth, there was no evil and no dwarves or ents for that matter.

God does not know the future in a more specific sense. He does not know every deccision a person will make or even whether the person will do good overall or evil. He does know probabilities. He knows from past decisions what we are MOST LIKELY going to do. He also knows EVERY deccision we could possibly make in a given situation. It would be more appropriate to say God knows all POSSIBLE futures. God can also tell that certain people are more likely to do great things because their parents did, either because of genetics or upbringing or a combination to the two.

well remember the Sweet is not as Sweet without the Bitter, Eru is GOD we are Talking about......
Could you imagine a world with nothing to fight for.

hope you understand what im trying to say.

I am afraid I do not understand what you are trying to say. Isn't heaven a world with nothing to fight for and isn't it by definition good?

[ December 27, 2002: Message edited by: Salocin ]

[ December 27, 2002: Message edited by: Salocin ]

[ December 27, 2002: Message edited by: Salocin ]

[akhtene]

After reading all the posts here I can only agree that Eru could not deprive the new world and it's inhabitants of free choice by destroying Melkor and setting the ONLY way of existance.

What I strongly believe in, is that Eru would have grieved a lot, having to destroy one of his creations, 'an offspring of his thought'. He probably relied on the 14 good powers to re-educate their stray brother or at least to diminish his influence. It's not Eru's fault that absolute good tends to be quite passive (when it takes some actions it stops being ABSOLUTE good). Its evil that is always scheming and plotting and looking for followers. So if that was Eru's plan (I mean the Valar's influence and Melcor's redemption) it definitely failed.

[doug*platypus]

I think that it's impossible for us to comprehend the mind of Eru, or if you like God. Yes, Melkor did bring a lot of evil into the world, but perhaps that was part of Ilúvatar's plan, for whatever reason. One or two people on this thread have painted a picture of a benevolent creator who only desires peace and well-being for all his creatures. Apparently this isn't the case. Whether it's because the creator just isn't that nice, or because of a higher purpose or a greater reason that we don't yet know about, we won't know until The End.

You may already have read it, but
this link has some BRILLIANT thoughts on the topic. Definitely worth reading at least once. Here's a gem from Mat Heathertoes found on the link:

He had to be the mightiest to be an adversary for the the other Valar. He had to have a share in all the others' gifts in order to undo or mar them and he had to turn to evil and order to accomplish both of the above. Eru works in mysterious ways.

[ January 05, 2003: Message edited by: doug*platypus ]

[Mandos]

Humans were created for one purpose and one purpose alone, to praise out God. In this life we are given a Great Gift and a Choice. To follow God or make it the best we can on our own and fall into Darkness. Tolkien knew this, this is his own hidden and at times not so sublty camolfouged, way of saying that Eru knew what would happen, but without letting Melkor go into Arda, the world would not be as it is. Just as Satan thought he could do a better job of being God and was cast out of Heaven " like a thunderbolt". God does not want anyone to HAVE to follow Him. He gives us a Choice. For there to be a Choice, there must be two sides, God's Side, and the devil's. So he must be allowed to come for there to exist a Choice. In this life we have a choice , in the next, we will be Judged for our Descision.

[Guildo]

In response to Sal, well Heavin is our reward for fighting.

Im not as good with words as alot of you but ill do my best. if you ask me fighting is the one thing that sets this world apart from heavin, we have to fight, otherwise we would be lazying around with nothing to do, and heck why go to heavin when you can stay here.

i guess my original Thesis was related to the Yin and Yang Theory. without the "Evil" you cannot define "Good" and vise versa, and im sure that was in Iluvitars plan. which is why Melkor hated him so much, no mater how hard he fought against it he was always a part of the song.

[ January 05, 2003: Message edited by: Guildo ]

[Salocin]

I can only agree that Eru could not deprive the new world and it's inhabitants of free choice by destroying Melkor and setting the ONLY way of existance.

For there to be a Choice, there must be two sides, God's Side, and the devil's

If someone has to have originally made the choice to disobey, how could the devil/Melkor have chosen that path? I believe Eru did not destroy Melkor for the same reason God does not end the life of evil men like Hitler; because they could, in theory, repent, not to see what havoc they can cause on the world and only partially to test the good.

Whether it's because the creator just isn't that nice, or because of a higher purpose or a greater reason that we don't yet know about, we won't know until The End.

(my emphasis)

Are you saying Eru is not good? I believe the deffinition of good is doing God's will. Aside from that I can see how many people may think certain events could only happen if there was a mean, malitious, or even evil god, but I am convinced these cases have logical explanations and that these people are just looking at the wrong view of a good God (maybe a cushy, feel goody, touchy-feelly God?) or do not want to believe in a good God or even any god and have to face their own sinfulness.

i guess my original Thesis was related to the Yin and Yang Theory. without the "Evil" you cannot define "Good" and vise versa, and im sure that was in Iluvitars plan.

Speeking purely about Illuvatar (and not God) I would like to point out that Tolkien was Catholic (and quite devout at too; he made his wife convert for the Church of England before he would marry her) and I doubt he would modle Illuvaltar on any god but the Christian one.

From the view of reality and Middle Earth, I do not see how evil would be required to define good if God/Eru exsisted for all eternity and evil only exsisted once the devil/Melkor rebeled. Eternity is an oftly long time for something to exist without being defined.

In short, I see no way that Illuvaltar could be moddled after the Yin Yang modle of the universe.

[Bill Ferny]

Salocin, I agree in part with what you are saying, but it is very dangerous to fall into Christian reductionism in regards to Tolkien’s cosmology.

When ever the Eru issue pops up, its seems that most want to limit Tolkien’s vision the Christian mythos. This is probably accurate to some degree, as the monotheism in the Silm is most like Tolkien’s own Christian beliefs. Its quite possible that to some degree Tolkien modeled Eru and his cosmology on the Christian mythos. Its pretty much all there, creation from nothing, a fallen angel, and a fallen creation. But I don’t think that Christianity is the only influence at work here, and I think that Tolkien consciously diverged from the Christian mythos in some very notable ways.

What always strikes me is the ambiguity around fallen Middle-Earth. Is Middle-Earth fallen because of Melkor’s fall? This seems to be the direction that Tolkien took. Middle-Earth is stained by the presence of Melkor. It was Melkor’s music that marred Arda to begin with. That, however, is very different from the Christian mythos. In the Christian mythos, Adam’s fall, not Satan’s, corrupts the world. Death, suffering, etc., etc., is brought about by sin, the sin of human beings. For those who reduce Eru and Tolkien’s cosmology to the Christian mythos, this is a huge inconsistency.

There are fundamental differences between the cosmology of Middle-Earth and Christian cosmology (not to mention anthropology as well). No doubt there are certain Christian elements in the Silm; for example, the emergence of evil becomes an opportunity for Eru to show forth his glory. This is very much like the sin of Adam becoming an opportunity for God to show forth his infinite mercy through the cross. However, Tolkien is not CS Lewis. Tolkien was not only a devout Catholic, but from all I’ve seen he was a very knowledgeable one as well. So, I’m forced to conclude that he knowingly diverged from the Christian mythology. Why? I don’t know, but in a way, I’m glad he did.

[Bill Ferny]

This thread got me thinking about the repercussions of Tolkien’s cosmology.

Because Melkor marred Arda before their awakening, we have no choice but to concede that Eru forced elves, men and dwarves (and hobbits) to live in a fallen world. Likewise, there really isn’t original sin in Middle-Earth, or at least original sin as is in the Christian mythos. Evil didn’t come into the world by the choice of elf, dwarf or man. However, since Middle-Earth is a fallen world because of Melkor, the condition of original sin definitely exists in Middle-Earth. So elves, dwarves and humans, though they didn’t initially sin, have to suffer from the condition of original sin. Hmmm… That seems a bit unfair, don’t you think? [img]smilies/confused.gif[/img]

Not only that, but elves, for some random reason, just because they were the first to awake, don’t have to suffer from all the effects of a fallen condition. This remains true despite Fëanor’s rebellion and the kin slaying! On top of that they get a nice big retirement house where they get to sit around indefinitely and drink cocktails with the Valar! Grrrrr… That seems extremely unfair! [img]smilies/mad.gif[/img]

Like the Númenórians, I would probably be a little peeved off too!

You can keep your Eru, I’m sticking with YHWH!

[Guildo]

I Still dont think you understand what im trying to say Sal.

If you have Good you MUST, MUST, MUST have an Evil.(period)

If you question that, your questioning a big part of the laws of physics. (For more information see Thermodynamics, study Quantum physics, read a Stephen Hawking Book, for for a spiritual point of view research Budism, and the Yin & Yang theory)

When Iluvitar first came to be he/she was niether Good nor Bad, more like a nuetral but not even that, because there was nothing to contrast him/her.

But when he/she created Melkor(a Bad) Goodness was defined as Iluvitar.

The Most Practical Example i can think of is- If you have spent your entire life in Darkness (True Black Darkness), and no one has ever described "Light" to you, you would have no reckoning of what "light" is untill it could be seen through your eyes.

Iluvitar created Melkor to make himself known as Good.As well as the stuff ive previously said.

/\
/ \
/ \
do your
worst.

[Bill Ferny]

OK, Guildo… now you’ve gone the totally opposite direction. Tolkien was not a physicist, and even if he was, physics certainly doesn’t presume to define good and evil, and if Stephen Hawkings did I would be greatly surprised; now that you’ve mentioned it, I’ll be sure to go through his public lectures. Tolkien wasn’t a Buddhist either, and while I don’t think he was slavish to the Christian model, I really don’t see much of a Buddhist influence in his work.

In contradiction to your thesis, see Aristotle, Plato, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Bernard Lonergan (to name just a few) for an explanation of how the Good can and does exist without evil.

[Mandos]

Well said. The Yin Yang theory ( as has already been said ) is certainly appliable here. For there to be Good, there must be Evil. To see the light, you must see darkness. For others to appreciate Good, they must have a taste of the Alternative. We arent meant to be forced to belong to one side, we are simply meant to choose for ourselves.

[Guildo]

you people are twisting my words, and no one seems to grasp what im talking about except Mandos, so im going to stop with my argument.

(+) (-)
(up) (Down)
(Good) (Evil)
(Black) (White)
(Dark) (Light)
(Hot) (Cold)
(Right) (Wrong)
(Left) (Right)
(North) (South)

Tolkien was not a physicist, and even if he was, physics certainly doesn’t presume to define good and evil, and if Stephen Hawkings did I would be greatly surprised; now that you’ve mentioned it, I’ll be sure to go through his public lectures. Tolkien wasn’t a Buddhist either, and while I don’t think he was slavish to the Christian model, I really don’t see much of a Buddhist influence in his work.

/\
That was twisting my words

[ January 05, 2003: Message edited by: Guildo ]

[Bill Ferny]

Guildo, grrrrrrr, this is what you said: “If you have Good you MUST, MUST, MUST have an Evil.(period)”

I understand that, and I don’t agree with it. Just because I disagree with you doesn’t mean I don’t understand you.

[Mandos]

Why do you not agree with this? There really isnt any other logical way to look at it.

[Bill Ferny]

Simple. Evil is not an opposite of Good. Evil is an absence of being. Evil is a corruption of the good.

No thing is completely evil, for if it was, it would not exist at all.

That's a highly simplified assessment of good/evil. Like I said, guys like Aristotle, Plato, Thomas Aquinas, Bernard Lonergan, etc. go into much greater depth.

I really don’t see how I twisted your words. Attempting to use a foreign model to interpret Tolkien’s cosmology risks misconstruing his cosmology. It would be far better to use the models that Tolkien, himself, utilized, namely the Christian, Norse, Finnish, Anglo/Saxon, and Teutonic mythologies.

[Mandos]

Yes, Tolkien based many things on the Finnish
Kalevala. However, if pure evil was nothing, than pure good was nothing, and none of us are really pure evil or pure good adds up to nothing times nothing which is nothing. I assure you that I am not nothing. So for there to be something, there must be a good and evil which is not nothing. See the logic here? Things must be in a BALANCE!!! Good and Evil which are things. If they were nothing, we wouldnt be here and that is that. You are over analyzing a simple problem, one of the most important facts of our universe is not a quantom theory equation, its easy to understand. Its not a paradox, but an equealibreum that is constantly maintained.

[Bill Ferny]

There’s no such thing as pure evil. Its not a nothing, its just a . If something is evil, it still, on some level must be good.

How did you come to the conclusion from what I wrote that good has to be nothing if evil is nothing?

Good is Being. To be good is to be. The good is a transcendental. Good can be predicated of anything that is, even Satan. Satan is good in as much as he/she exists. Satan is evil in as much as he/she lacks perfection according to his/her nature.

Why does there have to be balance? And what should be balanced? Either something is what it was created to be, or to some degree it is not. There’s no paradox to that.

[Mandos]

Interesting except that good and evil arent defined by us. you DID say before that pure evil was nothing? its illogical what u r saying.

[Bill Ferny]

**chuckle**

No, I said: No thing can be completely evil, because if it was it wouldn’t exist at all.

Illogical? Think of the repercussions of your own position. You would posit that evil is a necessity. So evil must exist beside good. Ok, so if they are both equal in power, both are balanced and in equilibrium, how do you know which one is good and which one is evil?

[Mandos]

You can tell the difference between light and dark cant you?

[Bill Ferny]

Yeah... but that doesn't have anything to do with it.

Well, actually it does... What is darkness? It's absence of light. Darkness is not equal to light, and darkness is not necessary for there to be light.

Thanks for the example [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

If two substances exist, equal in power, equal in perfection, equal in being, equal in essence, equal in accident then they would be indistinguishable from each other.

[Legolas]

Most of you seem to be asserting your own preconceived opinions based on your experiences with this world.

Tolkien himself addressed this matter, both in general *and* in the particular instance in question.

Read Osanwe-kenta (an essay by Tolkien) - it's precisely what you're looking for. Tolkien went through the themes being discussed here in his letters too. They are also addressed in the works!

A thread I started covered almost all of what is being discussed here: Of Evil, Free will, and Fate (from 'Gollum') The discussion there was about how/why evil went on. It started from the following quotes, but basically, these quotes should answer your question.

In part, the free will of his beings is what brings Eru's plan together. From The Silmarillion:

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.

Tolkien wrote a lot about free will in Letter No. 153:

To conclude: having mentioned Free Will, I might say that in my myth I have used 'subcreation' in a special way (...) to make visible and physical the effects of Sin or misused Free Will by men. Free Will is derivative, and is.'. only operative within provided circumstances; but in order that it may exist, it is necessary that the Author should guarantee it, whatever betides : sc. when it is 'against His Will', as we say, at any rate as it appears on a finite view. He does not stop or make 'unreal' sinful acts and their consequences. So in this myth, it is 'feigned' (legitimately whether that is a feature of the real world or not) that He gave special 'sub-creative' powers to certain of His highest created beings: that is a guarantee that what they devised and made should be given the reality of Creation. Of course within limits, and of course subject to certain commands or prohibitions. But if they 'fell', as the Diabolus Morgoth did, and started making things 'for himself, to be their Lord', these would then 'be', even if Morgoth broke the supreme ban against making other 'rational' creatures like Elves or Men. They would at least 'be' real physical realities in the physical world, however evil they might prove, even 'mocking' the Children of God. They would be Morgoth's greatest Sins, abuses of his highest privilege, and would be creatures begotten of Sin, and naturally bad. (I nearly wrote 'irredeemably bad'; but that would be going too far. Because by accepting or tolerating their making - necessary to their actual existence - even Orcs would become part of the World, which is God's and ultimately good.) But whether they could have 'souls' or 'spirits' seems a different question; and since in my myth at any rate I do not conceive of the making of souls or spirits, things of an equal order if not an equal power to the Valar, as a possible 'delegation', I have represented at least the Orcs as pre-existing real beings on whom the Dark Lord has exerted the fullness of his power in remodelling and corrupting them, not making them. That God would 'tolerate' that, seems no worse theology than the toleration of the calculated dehumanizing of Men by tyrants that goes on today. There might be other 'makings' all the same which were more like puppets filled (only at a distance) with their maker's mind and will, or ant-like operating under direction of a queen-centre.

Here we're told Melkor and all of the Ainur had free will. From Osanwe-kenta:

They are, of course, open to Eru, but they cannot of their own will "see" any part of His mind. They can open themselves to Eru in entreaty, and He may then reveal His thought to them.

Manwe could be considered purely good because he acted in accordance to the thoughts of Eru. From Osanwe-kenta:

Some say that Manwe, by a special grace to the King, could still in a measure perceive Eru; others more probably, that he remained nearest to Eru, and Eru was most ready to hear and answer him.

Manwe was wiser; or being ever open to Eru he did His will, which is more than wisdom. He was ever open because he had nothing to conceal, no thought that it was harmful for any to know, if they could comprehend it. Indeed Melkor knew his will without questioning it; and he knew that Manwe was bound by the commands and injunctions of Eru, and would do this or abstain from that in accordance with them, always, even knowing that Melkor would break them as it suited his purpose.

Thus comes the matter of tainted evil becoming good again. In Osanwe-kenta, evil's repentance is possible:

Melkor had the right to exist, and the right to act and use his powers. Manwe had the authority to rule and to order the world, so far as he could, for the well-being of the Eruhíni; but if Melkor would repent and return to the allegiance of Eru, he must be given his freedom again. He could not be enslaved, or denied his part. The office of the Elder King was to retain all his subjects in the allegiance of Eru, or to bring them back to it, and in that allegiance to leave them free.

The release was according to the promise of Manwe. If Manwe had broken this promise for his own purposes, even though still intending "good", he would have taken a step upon the paths of Melkor. That is a perilous step. In that hour and act he would have ceased to be the vice-gerent of the One, becoming but a king who takes advantage over a rival whom he has conquered by force. Would we then have the sorrows that indeed befell; or would we have the Elder King lose his honour, and so pass, maybe, to a world rent between two proud lords striving for the throne? Of this we may be sure, we children of small strength: any one of the Valar might have taken the paths of Melkor and become like him: one was enough.

Later on, we're told how Melkor finally fell, which may be the ultimate good in him. He was such a vile spirit, capable of mass destruction and corruption in Middle-earth - yet he bound himself to his physical incarnation and weakened himself, providing a means for his own destruction.

Melkor alone of the Great became at last bound to a bodily form; but that was because of the use that he made of this in his purpose to become Lord of the Incarnate, and of the great evils that he did in the visible body. Also he had dissipated his native powers in the control of his agents and servants, so that he became in the end, in himself and without their support, a weakened thing, consumed by hate and unable to restore himself from the state into which he had fallen. Even his visible form he could no longer master, so that its hideousness could not any longer be masked, and it showed forth the evil of his mind.

[ January 06, 2003: Message edited by: Legalos ]

[Bill Ferny]

Legolas, thanks for the quotes. Did you notice, though, that Tolkien may have contradicted himself in letter 153:

…having mentioned Free Will, I might say that in my myth I have used 'subcreation' in a special way (...) to make visible and physical the effects of Sin or misused Free Will BY MEN… So in this myth, it is 'feigned' (legitimately whether that is a feature of the real world or not) that He gave special 'sub-creative' powers to CERTAIN OF HIS HIGHEST CREATED BEINGS…

(Emphasis added to show the possible contradiction.)

He first says that subcreation is meant to demonstrate sin or misuse of free will by men, but then says that only certain of Eru’s highest created beings have this sub-creative power. It would seem that we are only dealing with the sin and misuse of free will by these highest created beings, not men. OR, is he trying to say that the Valar are archetypes of the human race (I mean the real human race, not Middle-Earth men), and Melkor is the archetype of Adam? I guess it would depend on how you read it.

[doug*platypus]

Wow, Mandos/Bill, that looked like a tennis match for a while! Excellent to see discussion resume on this thread, though.

If you have Good you MUST, MUST, MUST have an Evil.(period)

Absolutely, without question, entirely and utterly... a matter of opinion. Neither right nor wrong.

If you question that, your questioning a big part of the laws of physics.

The laws of physics which apply to Middle-Earth? The same Middle-Earth where Gandalf uses his staff to create fire? The one where a circular piece of gold contains the malevolent spirit of a demi-god?

???

In my earlier post I wrote:

One or two people on this thread have painted a picture of a benevolent creator who only desires peace and well-being for all his creatures. Apparently this isn't the case.

To which a response was:

Are you saying Eru is not good?

The answer is "not exactly". I'm saying that possibly he is not entirely good. Of course, this may upset Bill and the others on the side of the Evil = Lack of Good theory. But in my opinion, Eru and to a greater extent the Hebrew God of the Old Testament, also Allah and a whole bunch of other less well-known gods, did things at one time or another that range from thoughtless to abhorrent. Eru's only fault as far as I can see, was allowing Evil to enter the world. To reiterate, it's most likely he had a higher purpose in this, but it's fair to say the event in itself was not "good" at all, causing death and suffering to many of his Children. As for some of the deities of our own world, the slaughter of entire peoples, in some cases to the last woman and child, is not only sanctioned but aided by the deity. I don't wish to stray too far from the Tolkien topic, but if you asked me whether Old Testament God was entirely good I would say "NO!" And perhaps Eru is not either.

Here's a related thread called Melkor - Evil by Will or Nature?.

[ January 06, 2003: Message edited by: doug*platypus ]

[Legolas]

Bill, I believe the word 'special' (right before "'sub-creative' powers to CERTAIN OF HIS HIGHEST CREATED BEINGS") might be the key to understanding what Tolkien meant. Only the special 'sub-creative' powers were given to certain of his highest created beings; not that they were the only beings to be given sub-creative powers at all. By 'special,' though, it is not clear which powers he meant.

Edit: added parentheses.

[ January 06, 2003: Message edited by: Legalos ]

[Salocin]

Likewise, there really isn’t original sin in Middle-Earth, or at least original sin as is in the Christian mythos

Original sin is not part of the Christian mythos. Some Christians, mainly the Roman Catholics, believe that wall humans (since Adam and Eve of cource) except Mary and Christ, are all born with this sin so they are inherently in debt. Not all Christians believe this though; the Easter Orthodox for example do not believe in this leg up. They believe that we are all born with the tendency and predesposition to sin but not with accual sin. They also do not believe that the Mother of God had an advantage over the rest of us, besides having holy parents. She was not born perfect, but attained perfection by doing Gods will. She could have sinned and turned away from God or even said no when The ArchAngel Micheal asked her to bear Christ. Many early Christian Scholars (befor 1000 A.D.;preschisim) in both the East and West held this belief as can be seen from their writings. Sorry, that was a little lengthy.

just because they were the first to awake, [elves] don’t have to suffer from all the effects of a fallen condition.

I believe they did not suffer from all the effects because of their semi-Imortality. This is because they are the First Born of Illuvaltar's children, not because they were born first. I hope you see what I'm saying.
Also, remember mortality was Eru's gift to men. He considered what they were getting where ever they go when they die better than the elves "retirement home"

Other than that I agree with Bill completely.

If you question that, your questioning a big part of the laws of physics. (For more information see Thermodynamics, study Quantum physics

On the Quantum physics bit (which happens to be one of my other passions), not all particles have a corresponding anti-particle. Lets look at photons for a moment (since every on seems to love the light analigies). It does not have an anti-particle equivalent. Neither do any elementary Bosons with the ecception of the W+ and W- vector Bosons. Also, Neutrons do not have non-Anti-Matter opposites as do the electron and the proton (positron and negatron respectively). Also, even looking at the things that are complete opposites, for some as yet unexplainable reason, there is more matter in the Universe than anti-Matter, so they are not equal.

Bills dead on with the Satan not being purely evil because than he would not exist and evil being not being. Not many people seem to realize that, Cuddos!

For the Good=Evil people: What is your deffinition of Good?

[akhtene]

Oh, gosh, now I'm totally and absolutely confused! I used to presume that Eru just LET Melkor exercise his Free Will by choosing to be evil.

But as it's been stated that EVIL is absolutely necessary for GOOD to exist, does it now mean that Eru DELIBERATELY MADE Melkor evil? Or...if the mightiest Vala hadn't chosen the crooked path (presuming it was his choice) did Illuvatar have anything else in store to keep the ballance?

[Mandos]

Perhaps Eru did not MAKE melkor evil, but rather LET him be evil.( an important thing to reme,ber here is that Eru gave to the Ainur independent wills and thoughts, for he wanted to see his creation grow) He knew what all would happen , but yet he allowed it. Like mortals, we are not meant to know why these things happen. For why did God cast Satan down to Earth rather than destroy him?

It is illogical to assume that good would exist without evil. For can light exist without dark? For everything there is a postive and a negative, that is physics and not debatable.

Eru knew that Melkor would wreck havoc upon Middle-Earth and its inhabitants, but he allowed to it. Why you may ask? You might as well ask why do our loved ones die, or why there are mass murders and world wars where women, childeren, and the elderly are brutally slaughtered. Possibly, to teach us all a lesson which may save us all one day, or to give us an understanding into something that may be worth it for the greater good.

In any case, there is always something bigger and better than us in charge of affairs that we as mortals in our short lives and two-dimensional vision do not comprehend and very likely can't comprehend.

Light and Darkness, Death and Life, each is necessary for the other to exist.I am just thankful that someone who knows much more than me and is greater than us all is in charge. For who are we to question the ways of things that we do not even understand? Light and Darkness, Death and Life, Good and Evil; each must be in balance and each must exist.
Eru let Melkor be evil so that Middle-Earth would become what it was. Without his influence things would be much different. Better you might say? Perhaps, but we do not know that. Perhaps without the influence of this Vala, a greater evil would have happened?

[Iarwain]

This may have already been said, but I'll say it anyway. Think back to the Ainulindale, and Eru's proposition of his third theme. By this time, Melkor's discord was more than a mere disturbance, It was a full fleged war of sounds. I recall that at the revelation of this theme, Eru was almost weeping. Perhaps this was because now he saw Melkor's evil, and was putting forth beauty into the emotion of grief and sorrow, making it good.

Just a thought,
Iarwain

[Bill Ferny]

Mandos, I get the funny feeling we are just going around in circles here. You may be singularly impressed with the yin/yang cosmology, and far be it from me to persuade your personal beliefs otherwise. But the yin/yang is not the metaphysic at work in Tolkien, especially when he consciously revised his cosmology according to his Christian faith. That is the reason why I’m pressing the point here.

Simply put, light is not a necessary condition for darkness, nor is darkness a necessary condition for light. The darkness of the room is completely irrelevant in regard to a light bulb’s ability to create light. It is illogical to posit that light and darkness both exist necessarily. When I turn on the light in my study, the darkness goes away! That indicates to me that darkness does not exist necessarily. It also indicates to me that darkness is not a positive thing, but simply an absence of light.

The same thing holds for good and evil. Evil is simply an absence of good. Something is evil in as much as it is, to one degree or another, not what it ought to be. That presupposes that that something has a nature, which in and of itself is good, and it is evil to the degree that it fails to actualize it’s nature. Thus all evils are corruption of things made good. Good things are more in being, because their natures are more actualized, and evil things are less in being because their natures are less actualized. This is the metaphysic accepted by Tolkien’s religious faith, Catholicism, and I think you would be hard pressed to demonstrate to me, from direct narrative or latter speculations, that he had any other metaphysic in mind when he conceived the creation and fall of Arda.

Physics has nothing to do with it, and even if it did, as Salocin points out:

On the Quantum physics bit (which happens to be one of my other passions), not all particles have a corresponding anti-particle. Lets look at photons for a moment (since every on seems to love the light analigies). It does not have an anti-particle equivalent. Neither do any elementary Bosons with the ecception of the W+ and W- vector Bosons. Also, Neutrons do not have non-Anti-Matter opposites as do the electron and the proton (positron and negatron respectively). Also, even looking at the things that are complete opposites, for some as yet unexplainable reason, there is more matter in the Universe than anti-Matter, so they are not equal.

Wow, now I know how it feels for a person who has never read Tolkien to read some of the threads on this forum! [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Melkor is evil, not by design, not because he has to be in order for there to be good, but because he wills not to be what Eru created him to be. It is a free act of will on his part. If it is necessary in any way for Melkor to be evil according Eru’s design, then Melkor would essentially be devoid of freewill.

[ January 11, 2003: Message edited by: Bill Ferny ]