Lord Melkor Rightful Master of the Fates of Arda

Star Trek fans will remember when Data got his emotions chip and went to the bar and tried a drink and says, ' uhhgh! oohhhggg! that's terrible! ohhgh! yuk. Wow! I hate this! I really hate this!
Bartender asks, "would you like another?"
Data responds eagerly, "yes, please!"

[The Saucepan Man]

Hmm, the subject matter of this debate would seem to present rather a good opportunity for parody.

Of course, having twisted the words of the Professor, I am sure that I will earn Senor Turambar's eternal disapprobation.

(Bovvered? )

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

Ah! You're a fan of the Super Mario games are you?

Doo doot do doot, do do doot do doot........

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Neithan Tol Turambar

Star Trek fans will remember when Data got his emotions chip and went to the bar and tried a drink and says, ' uhhgh! oohhhggg! that's terrible! ohhgh! yuk. Wow! I hate this! I really hate this!
Bartender asks, "would you like another?"
Data responds eagerly, "yes, please!"

That actually makes sense - I track you.

Originally Posted by The Christian Bible, Book of Mark, 7:13-23

"...Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."

Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him 'unclean.' "

After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. "Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")

He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' "

It's not 'evil' - a thing, a being, a force, the Darkness - it's the action, what comes out, given the choices.

Hey wow man you should see if you can find out the other sites I write on.
Real Idenity stuff. Some people think it's really really bad, but I think it's cool.

But I regret to announce that I've been threatened with excommunication and must seek absolution. It was, any way, part of my Grand Design from the begining to switch characters and then tear my own arguments apart . . . .

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

One could argue that a truly morally good world would be one in which guns, violent pornography & the like was freely available, but everyone had made a free choice not to have anything to do with it.
...
Which is why Morgoth's rebellion is necessary, why he could be said to be the 'liberator' of the Children - his rebellion not only enables, but actually forces them to choose between good & evil & to make a stand.

It is one thing to argue that evil is necessary as a moral choice, so that rational beings can manifest free will and morality, and totally another to argue that we must have Melkor - the most powerful ainu falling to the most powerful agent of evil. In fact, it can be argued that the fall of Melkor makes it harder for Men (being the weakest) to exercise their free will, since they are more susceptible to marring through their hroa. Thus, Melkor's marring doesn't help (in this sense), quite the contrary. Melkor didn't create evil as a moral choice, he merely became its first victim and most powerful agent.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

It is one thing to argue that evil is necessary as a moral choice, so that rational beings can manifest free will and morality, and totally another to argue that we must have Melkor - the most powerful ainu falling to the most powerful agent of evil. In fact, it can be argued that the fall of Melkor makes it harder for Men (being the weakest) to exercise their free will, since they are more susceptible to marring through their hroa. Thus, Melkor's marring doesn't help (in this sense), quite the contrary. Tolkien didn't create evil as a moral choice, he merely became its first victim and most powerful agent.

But in a mythological setting evil must have a manifest form, & that form must be the ultimate archetypal form that evil can possibly take. It must, in other words, show evil in its most extreme form. Melkor is the ultimate extreme & rarely enters into the story directly after the destruction of the Trees & the theft of the Silmarils. What we see more usually are, if you will, lesser 'harmonics' of the evil Melkor symbolises - Balrogs, dragons & Orcs. Hence, it is evil in more 'manageable' form that Men & Elves actually confront, rather than 'pure' evil in most cases.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

But in a mythological setting evil must have a manifest form, & that form must be the ultimate archetypal form that evil can possibly take. It must, in other words, show evil in its most extreme form.

Well, evil has a manifest form in all Ea, since it was corrupted. Melkor himself was not wholly evil, since Tolkien argued this would be a zero. Also, for every exponent of evil in any mythology, I believe that he could be conceived as more evil/powerful than he actually is depicted; even in this fantasy Universe, it seems that Sauron is the closest representation of evil, not Melkor:

Originally Posted by Letter #183

In my story I do not deal in Absolute Evil. I do not think there is such a thing, since that is Zero. I do not think that at any rate any 'rational being' is wholly evil. Satan fell. In my myth Morgoth fell before Creation of the physical world. In my story Sauron represents as near an approach to the wholly evil will as is possible.

I hope I am coherent, a cup of wine seems to take its toll

Acolyte Hookbill The Goomba refered to C.S. Lewis earlier, I thought that when I had a chance I would say something more about it, but one thing drives out another as they say, and well, maybe it was better so because the course of the thread seems to have evolved into an even more appropriate setting for what I was to suggest, which is:
C.S. Lewis wrote a fantastic book called "The Screwtape Letters".
I think it was his best.

"Insult the devil, that proud spirit, and he will flee from you, for he cannot bear to be mocked." (paraphrase) [too lazy and not vain enough and not good enough at computers to get it right.

[Thenamir]

It was, any way, part of my Grand Design from the begining to switch characters and then tear my own arguments apart .

How many guises do you wear, Neithan? An intellectual, a philosopher, a buffoon, a drunkard, and an insufferable snob...have I missed any?

If you wish to announce who and what you are finally, and then point out what you were trying (unsuccessfully) to do, and the deficiencies in our responses, please do so under your own nick. The admins here take a very dim view of people who register multiple nicks here to get "under our radar".

On the other hand, I would be most pleased to hear an explanation of exactly what you hoped to accomplish, and the way in which you would tear down your own arguments. There is something to be said for learning to properly debate against a "devil's advocate", or perhaps in this case, "Morgoth's advocate."

If only it hadn't been done so often here before...

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by davem

Legate I still can't see how you could classify the meal as 'good' if you had nothing with which to compare it. If you only ever had 'good' meals you would not think of the meal as good - you would simply think of it as a meal. 'good' implies the existence of 'bad'. If only 'good' existed you wouldn't need the word 'good'. But this is not merely a linguistic debate.

Only to this: this is what I said in my post, that if you use "good" as description of something which is "better than something else" , then you must have evil with it, of course. I emphasised the "linguistic debate" thing - this is actually also what I said in my post above, it depends on what you imagine under the word "good" (you say "good" but if you wanted to describe what you imagine under it, you imagine actually something "better", "qualitatively higher than standard". Cf. above). Otherwise, in a world where no evil exists, the "good"=simply "normal", the inhabitant does not feel the "good" things as something "better than normal" because "good" is norm - as you said. But this does not mean that the "normal" thing is not "good" for you - qualitatively, it helps you somehow, it is, well, good for you. This is the meaning of good I'm using here. And this is the point of my post above. This is what I wanted to say.

Aside from that, with the rest of your points - as well as Lal's - I more or less agree. Good point about the light looking brighter next to darkness, yes, and the moral choices impossible without choice of evil - quite. Nothing to add to that (or at least I don't want to start on it now).

EDIT: Okay, I decided to add something. Well, the main thing I'd point to your two posts would be that the main thing we have to take in mind, and this is what the point was, that Eru/God does not invent (in a metaphysical, not physical sense = by physical I mean things like that "if he didn't want Men to kill each other, he should not have invented pointy things" - this is another dimension and totally out of what the main meaning is) or support evil, if you want to say it like that, he "sided" with the good things. There is the option to do evil, though he does not approve this. So there is no way of saying "but he made the evil..." Nope. So to make matters clear, for those who could think different, because this I think wasn't mentioned. So applying this on Melkor, he was on the "wrong side" - yes, evil.

That would be all.

[davem]

Of course one may live in a world where everything is 'good for' one. But is a thing that is 'good for you' the same a a thing that is 'Good' in a moral sense? Vegetables are 'good for you' but they are not 'Good' in a moral sense - ie it is not immoral not to 'eat your greens'. In the same way smoking may be 'bad for you' but smoking (while it may be anti-social & harmful to others around you) is not an 'immoral' act like rape or murder or theft.

There is the option to do evil, though he does not approve this. So there is no way of saying "but he made the evil..." Nope. So to make matters clear, for those who could think different, because this I think wasn't mentioned. So applying this on Melkor, he was on the "wrong side" - yes, evil.

But Melkor must exist & when he ceases to exist he is replaced by Sauron - because evil must have a name & a 'location'. From this perspective it would matter little whether Melkor/Sauron created the evil that found its way into Men's hearts or whether the evil in Men's hearts created Melkor/Sauron. Evil has to exist as a possiblity so that Men may choose the Good (rather than simply choosing what's 'good for them'.

You see, choosing what's 'good for you' may be the most selfish of acts & in fact be little better than narcisism, if it becomes an obsession. And one would have to ask 'good' in what way? Good for the body, or good for the spirit? One could ask whether Frodo did what was 'good for' him & find oneself arguing with oneself for a very long time. However, if one asks did Frodo do a 'Good' thing one would have to simply say yes. So doing a Good thing may be very bad for you. Hence, I suppose it must follow that some things which are 'good for you may actually be Bad, even Evil, because they demonstrate a self love & a lack of concern for, & interest in, those around you - or even a desire to force others to do as you wish, to control them 'for their own good'.

[narfforc]

If we take one scenario and look at it from a distance and suppose that the powers of Good and Bad are also looking in then we can start with the moment Frodo Baggins stand at the Cracks of Doom, the power of Good is rubbing his/her hands thinking 'I'm going to win', in the background Bad is trembling. Suddenly Frodo the Good becomes Frodo the Naughty, the grin returns to the face of Bad, he's managed to corrupt the blighter, enter stage left the evil Gollum who unbeknown to Bad is going to do the power of Good a favour. 'Oh no! how can this be' thinks Bad, 'he's supposed to be one my side', so evil destroys evil and it's a good thing, for Good has triumphed over Bad by Bads own means. In all this Fate has shown it's hand, did Good win because Gollum fell or was he pushed, was he there because Good wanted him there or Bad?. What I am trying to say is that even very good people can do bad things by accident, there is no intention, fate has dealt an ugly blow, evil can do good without intention also.


It's a Good thing I know what this gibberish means.



.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Originally Posted by Neithan Tol Turambar

C.S. Lewis wrote a fantastic book called "The Screwtape Letters".
I think it was his best.

"Insult the devil, that proud spirit, and he will flee from you, for he cannot bear to be mocked." (paraphrase) [too lazy and not vain enough and not good enough at computers to get it right.

He begins his introduction to STL with two quotations

'The best way to drive out the devil, if he will not yield to text of scripture, is the jeer and flout him, for he cannot bear scorn. - Luther.'

and

'The Devil, the proud spirit, cannot endure to be mocked. - Thomas Moor.'

It is also interesting to note that STL was addressed to Tolkien.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

It is also interesting to note that STL was addressed to Tolkien.

And that he didn't like the book apparently - because he didn't think true evil should be treated that lightly.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

To davem: I agree with your last post (not the last short, the long one). I was not speaking of the moral point of view, nor about the state where the good and evil already exist (where the setting of narfforc's wonderful story takes place), I was speaking of a state where evil does not exist at all, saying that such a state would be theoretically possible (the original question concerned "unspoiled" Ainur - I was trying to show that in Ainulindalë, evil does not have to exist until the "fall" - concretely, Melkor's fall. At the beginning there is one choice of evil, the model situation of "fall", before which everything was good, then the evil can repeat until the eschatological Second Music, where "...the themes of Ilúvatar shall be played aright, and take Being in the moment of their utterance, for all shall then understand fully his intent in their part, and each shall know the comprehension of each...". The time between, where evil exists, is the moment where everyone can learn, grow, make moral choices as you said, and so on. For more comparison, cf. my signature, for example ).

[davem]

Ok, so, Arda 'renewed', when the Music shall be played aright, is effectively a consequence of the 'Fall' resulting from Melkor's rebellion? The First Music could not have been played aright, because the capacity for moral choices was not within the Ainur. If Arda was not to be inhabited by a bunch of robots, or 'Yes-men' the Children of Eru (including the Ainur), had to be placed in a position where they would need to make moral choices - ie, where their allegiance to the Good was not simply a consequence of not having any alternative, but where they have known Evil & had the option to ally themselves with it. Hence, at the end, those who participate in the Second Music will sing the themes aright, not because they don't have anything else to sing, but because they will have chosen in full awareness to sing the right themes.

Which, if I'm right, requires not only Morgoth's rebellion, but all the suffering which takes place. Evil has to be fully known & each potential participant in the Second Music must make a choice in full knowledge (ie not out of fear of Eru, or willful ignorance, or desire for reward).

Or in short, if Morgoth hadn't existed, Eru would have had to create him......

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

More or less, yes. The thing I'd point out is:

Or in short, if Morgoth hadn't existed, Eru would have had to create him......

Not actually. If we speak of persons only, then he wouldn't have to create Morgoth - he only would have to create any free-willed person. It could have been an Elf, or a Man (as in the Bible), who would make the first "falling step". The only prerequisite for it would have to be free will to choose even evil. The prerequisite, as we can deduce, Eru gave already to all the Ainur. He said: "Now play some variations in terms of this theme." Melkor was the one who chose to play "outside" of the theme. But even if all Ainur played according to the theme and created a 100% perfect world (mountains where they should be, seas where they should be etc.), the first Elf/Man could still choose evil, and he will be the first "Morgoth". Because they have free will, the possibility existed.

If you want it in plain English: from the moment when a being capable of do good/evil exists, evil (and good in the meaning as you presented it before, as opposite of evil) exists. Singularity (Eru - "the One") does not allow contradictions, because everything is good (!in the meaning I presented here all the time) for it. The second being can cause things the One does not "like" (said very, very vaguely; for using terms for transcendental things is vague at best, but for our purposes let's take it like that, this is not our subject now). As long as the Eä exists, the One can choose how to interact with the Creation (if ever), e.g. in Christianity we have the example that God interacts very much with the Creation, and even is himself the one who completely turns the tide for the Creation by choosing to lead its path from self-destruction (which would result if the Creation were left to itself) to Redemption. In Middle-Earth, the matters are less clear, because Eru intervenes very scarcely - or maybe he does more, but we are not told about it, so this is left to speculation. But what we know for sure even for Middle-Earth is that at one moment, finally, there is the eschatological "Cut!": "Then he raised up both his hands, and in one chord, deeper than the Abyss, higher than the Firmament, piercing as the light of the eye of Ilúvatar, the Music ceased." There is the End of Eä, and after that, there is the Second Music - as I said earlier - and yes, here I'd quote you,
"Hence, at the end, those who participate in the Second Music will sing the themes aright, not because they don't have anything else to sing, but because they will have chosen in full awareness to sing the right themes."

[davem]

So Eru must permit not only the possibility, but also the actuality of Evil. Evil cannot simply be obliterated by Eru (because that would obliterate free will too, & all but guarantee that the Second Music would go the way of the First), but must be rejected (or accepted) by each individual. While the capacity to choose evil exists within any of the Children Eru must permit the existence of evil - until each has made a free choice one way or the other.

Eru 'needs' evil to exist as a possibility, an option. Hence, it seems to me, it is too simplistic to say that Eru 'hates' evil, he may do - but he also needs it because without it the Children would not be able to choose the Good/Eru freely, in full knowledge. Evil is necessary in that sense, & hence so is Melkor/Morgoth - not necessary for what he does, but for what he is.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by davem

So Eru must permit not only the possibility, but also the actuality of Evil. Evil cannot simply be obliterated by Eru (because that would obliterate free will too, & all but guarantee that the Second Music would go the way of the First), but must be rejected (or accepted) by each individual. While the capacity to choose evil exists within any of the Children Eru must permit the existence of evil - until each has made a free choice one way or the other.

Couldn't have said it better. You summed it up.

Eru 'needs' evil to exist as a possibility, an option. Hence, it seems to me, it is too simplistic to say that Eru 'hates' evil, he may do - but he also needs it because without it the Children would not be able to choose the Good/Eru freely, in full knowledge. Evil is necessary in that sense, & hence so is Melkor/Morgoth - not necessary for what he does, but for what he is.

Well, there actually is one possibility - unless, for some unexplicable reason, all decided to choose good from the very beginning, even before knowing evil. This is the theoretical "all-good" state. It's merely theoretical, mind you. But what I want to show on that is, that Eru does not need to create evil himself, or support it, or name it among the possibilities of what can be done - the only thing he has to do is allow it for the free choice. Simply said, he has to allow to be disobeyed. Which is, of course, only natural if he wants to give the beings he created a free will. Eru said: you can play the music in any way you wish, using any way, and here is my theme, play it in C-dur. Melkor decided to play it in C-moll, and it was Melkor who got the idea of playing it in C-moll, Eru didn't propose it as an option.
Yet to Morgoth needing necessarily have to exist - I suppose you take Morgoth here not as person, but as the personification of evil? As the representation of the "other choice", of the "C-moll", right? Well in that case, you are right, obviously. The way I understand it (if I misunderstood you, please correct me) I would better say it like this: there was the need to create the option of choosing Morgoth instead of Eru. (using Morgoth=symbol of the evil) So if you take it like that, yes, of course. There is quite thin line however, of interpretating what we said above the wrong way - like as if it was Eru who proposed Men the choice to choose Morgoth, thus, even choosing Morgoth would go with Eru's will (and we might even completely overlook that we are rejecting Eru!). So yes, I agree with all you said - assuming I understood you correctly - only I thought it's needed to make this clear, for errare humanum est and people tend to wrongly interpretate many things.

[narfforc]

What has always intrigued me about The Second Music is that when all The Children sing before Eru will this include the corrupted forms that had life, will Eru cleanse and renew them also, will they see the Light of The Secret Fire and be at one with all things that have come from the divine spark, or will they suffer the fate of their Master who twisted them into hateful beings that had little or no control over their creation or fate, for are they not also victims. In bodily form an elf may return, what form would an orc be if allowed to return for the Second Music.

[davem]

Of course, being omniscient Eru must have known the choices Melkor & those who followed him would make, & therefore brought them into being knowing what they would do. Hence in making them he is 'responsible' - not for making Melkor choose evil over Good, but for making him knowing that he would choose evil over Good. Which means he made him knowing that he would rebel & that he would suffer being cast into the Void.

But Eru didn't have to act. He didn't have to create anything. When he chose to create in full knowledge of what would happen rather than not create at all, he makes himself ultimately responsible for the suffering that will ensue - as well as the Glory that will result. Note: Eru is not responsible for creating evil as such, but he is responsible for creating anything at all when he knows full well that evil will come into being as a result (direct or indirect) of that act of creation.

(Of course, maybe he did have to act - maybe creation is Eru's nature & he cannot therefore not create.)

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Davem: You answered yourself in your post Whatever Eru would create, if it had free will, it could've rebelled, so the only other option was not to create anything at all. Only to what you say about the possibility of him having to act, we don't know, but I think it is not logical, since it makes Eru a not-free being (contradiction with that he's omnipotent).

Originally Posted by narfforc

or will they suffer the fate of their Master who twisted them into hateful beings that had little or no control over their creation or fate, for are they not also victims. In bodily form an elf may return, what form would an orc be if allowed to return for the Second Music.

Well, that depends. I don't know if there is anywhere stated what would happen to Orcs&co. at the End of Arda. Also, if you are speaking only of appearance here, I think we don't know anything from Tolkien's works about if the Children will have any bodily form any longer, or at least, they would obviously not have the same they had in life (since that one might be burned, quartered or whatever). So the difference between an Elf (or Man)& an Orc would be only in their "spirit", if you like. I don't know much about this "Arda renewal" stuff - better ask someone else - but if there would be a "new" Arda, I might think that it would be up to the Children what form they'd choose to take. But I'm only speculating, this is a mystery for me as much as for you. The only thing for sure is probably that the form will be "good".

Oh, and I would like to point one funny thing I noticed. Please see what the thread came to now, and look at the first words of the opening post of the thread:

Originally Posted by Neithan Tol Turambar

I would like to start a thread to glorify Lord Melkor...

And now, please, compare what you saw here, with this:

Originally Posted by Eru Ilúvatar

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.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Davem: You answered yourself in your post Whatever Eru would create, if it had free will, it could've rebelled, so the only other option was not to create anything at all. Only to what you say about the possibility of him having to act, we don't know, but I think it is not logical, since it makes Eru a not-free being (contradiction with that he's omnipotent).

But then aren't we left with Eru being ultimately responsible for the suffering of his creatures - they only really suffer because he creates them knowing what their fate will be? Its not even the case that Eru knew Hurin might suffer at the hands of Morgoth, & that Turin might commit incest with his sister - Eru knew for an inevitable fact that those things would happen (along with everything else) & still spoke the 'Ea!'

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by davem

But then aren't we left with Eru being ultimately responsible for the suffering of his creatures - they only really suffer because he creates them knowing what their fate will be? Its not even the case that Eru knew Hurin might suffer at the hands of Morgoth, & that Turin might commit incest with his sister - Eru knew for an inevitable fact that those things would happen (along with everything else) & still spoke the 'Ea!'

Well, in that matter, of course. But he is not responsible for anything more than giving them the option to do what they did, the evil was their "invention". The responsibility and choice was all theirs, the only thing they can say to Eru is: "It would be better if you haven't created me at all." So, the question you set here now is not about Eru, it is the Hamletish question. If you take the example of Húrin, then Eru could have chosen not to speak "Eä!", as you said earlier, but then there would be no Creation. And if he chose to speak it, then there will be the suffering Húrin.

[The 1,000 Reader]

Eru gave them the choices and they chose the ones that he didn't like. He didn't want to cripple their free will, but he still didn't want them to take those paths of darkness.

Eru is not responsible for Morgoth being evil. Morgoth took that path himself. All was well in the beginning until Morgoth went down a dark road. In that case, Morgoth is to blame for his actions, not his father.

[davem]

Originally Posted by The 1,000 Reader

Eru gave them the choices and they chose the ones that he didn't like. He didn't want to cripple their free will, but he still didn't want them to take those paths of darkness.

Well, they didn't all choose the ones he didn't like - that's the point - they all had the choice; in fact they all had to have the choice if the Music was to be played aright in the end - & more importantly if they were to be able to choose to play it right. The 'paths of darkness' must exist if the Children are to be truly free. They must make a free choice not to take them. Yet Eru creates them knowing that some will take those paths. He doesn't make them take the 'paths' but he knows that some will take them (because he knows everything). So he gives them life knowing some of them will suffer (as a result of their own free choice of course). Was he right to do that? If a couple decide to have a child knowing that child will inherit a painful, crippling disease are they free of all responsibility for that child's suffering?

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by davem

Yet Eru creates them knowing that some will take those paths. He doesn't make them take the 'paths' but he knows that some will take them (because he knows everything). So he gives them life knowing some of them will suffer (as a result of their own free choice of course). Was he right to do that? If a couple decide to have a child knowing that child will inherit a painful, crippling disease are they free of all responsibility for that child's suffering?

It's miraculous you come to the same thoughts as I, davem - when I finished my last post and quitted the Downs for a while, I thought "oh, I could have used an example, like of parents deciding to have a child even though they know it will suffer". As you said, Eru (in difference to human parents) knew some of them would suffer - well, possibly all of them, but only in certain moments of their life, some more, some less. But I think you cannot say that it would be a child who would only suffer. If you take Húrin, he was certainly happy at some moments of his life, before his capture by Morgoth, or even Túrin, the very personification of ill fate, he was happy with his friends, with Finduilas, even with Nienor... Another thing: If I reversed the question, it is fair not to create someone who would be happy? This might sound pretty selfish (from the point of view of the happier ones, though even they obviously suffer in their life, at least a little). I think that actually, the answer to your question depends on whether there would be any people who would say, at the end of their life (or in some after-death state where they'd have the possibility to ponder all their life without momentary emotions), "this was not worth living at all". Or, if even those who suffered, would say "no, my life was good, although it was mostly suffering". This is probably unanswerable question.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

I think that actually, the answer to your question depends on whether there would be any people who would say, at the end of their life (or in some after-death state where they'd have the possibility to ponder all their life without momentary emotions), "this was not worth living at all". Or, if even those who suffered, would say "no, my life was good, although it was mostly suffering". This is probably unanswerable question.

Yes, but....

Eru puts them in that position without asking them, or giving them any choice at all in the matter. They may well, in the end, look back & be grateful for the 'good' they have known, even feel that the good so far outweighed the evil that they accept the evil as the necessary price. However, Eru did not get their consent before he created them. He placed them in a world where they would have to choose good or evil, & suffer either way. They are innocent & if they are deserving of anything at all they deserve to know good, not evil & pain - yet that is what they get: because Eru puts them in a situation where they will inevitably know suffering. Let's say that in the end they all say to Eru 'Thank you. It was worth the pain.' Does that absolve Eru absolutely for putting them in a place where they would suffer? Is not his creation of them, & his need for them to choose to sing his Music aright at least a little bit selfish? After all, they could not desire existence before they existed, so Eru made the choice for them, & that choice involved their suffering.

[The 1,000 Reader]

Eru doesn't put them in that position. They happen to wind up in those positions. If Eru micromanaged the whole world every day like some people think, he'd be crippling the free will of his people.

[davem]

Originally Posted by The 1,000 Reader

Eru doesn't put them in that position. They happen to wind up in those positions. If Eru micromanaged the whole world every day like some people think, he'd be crippling the free will of his people.

But he knew before he created them that they would end up in that position. And he created them nonetheless.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

(ad davem's first post after my last one)
This is partially a paradox, because we are speaking of some state where you should ask someone who does not exist yet if he wanted to exist. To ask someone whether he wants to exist, you have to first bring him to existence, ergo, this is unsolvable, since by bringing him to existence you already chose instead of him.
Moving to the line of speculation, however, we might assume that, Eru being omniscient, he might know that all the beings will finally thank him and will reply that they wanted to exist. This is only a speculation, though, but it occured to me as one possibility of a solution. Otherwise, as I said above, the question is probably still unsolvable because of the paradox - if we don't happen to think of anything else.

Legate of Amon Lanc QOUTE: ". . .Eru/God . . ."
That is my secret intention. Can I get more specific than that?
"Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"
If you asked me to build you a motorcycle, and I asked you what style you were looking for, and you responded, "Well I'll take what is standard, because I do not know exactly what motorcycle engineers have in mind." Then afforded me the budget, and then went on a journey, returning after it's completion.
Seeing the completed motorcycle you realize that there are many many things about it that do not appeal to you, and then, unlike before, you can see exactly what changes that you would have made to bring the bike into harmony with the new ideal vision that has dawned on your mind. Now you know what you want. That is what you have been asking of me, so that you may reject it, and then see clearly how to conform it to your own ideal.
This I have refused to do. I say to you Thenamir, I will not do this thing. I will not build this motorcycle for you. But now that I know the desire of your heart, I will force this thing upon you, and if you try to go on your journey, I shall hinder you when I may, I shall follow you and waylay you upon the road, and detain you.
You shall have your motorcycle, but Lo! I will try to force you to build it yourself, though you do not know the way. I shall show the parts I had in mind and that I have prepared for you, I shall show them each to you singly, and though apart from the others you do not know the purpose or meaning of each, and cannot comprehend how they are connected, still I will lay them out before you, in perfect reverse engineered order so that all you have to do is follow the trail of parts, applying them to the growing whole. When you are finished it shall be that same motorcycle that I had designed from the beginning, only now, ye shall love it. Ye shall love it more dearly and in your eyes it shall be perfect.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Moving to the line of speculation, however, we might assume that, Eru being omniscient, he might know that all the beings will finally thank him and will reply that they wanted to exist. This is only a speculation, though, but it occured to me as one possibility of a solution. Otherwise, as I said above, the question is probably still unsolvable because of the paradox - if we don't happen to think of anything else.

Of course - all such speculations are.... Can God create a rock that is too heavy for him to move? etc. But what interests me is what it says about Eru & what Tolkien is saying about him here. Eru creates a world that is already flawed by Melkor's disonance & introduces the Children into it. Even if he knew that they would thank him in the end does that make it ok to do it? And even if it does, & even if it is the only way to achieve his perfect end he is still responsible for their suffering in that if he hadn't created them they would not have suffered. They suffer, but he does not. Unless, of course, his entry into Arda (cf Athrabeth) means that he too suffers as they do.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by davem

Of course - all such speculations are.... Can God create a rock that is too heavy for him to move? etc. But what interests me is what it says about Eru & what Tolkien is saying about him here. Eru creates a world that is already flawed by Melkor's disonance & introduces the Children into it. Even if he knew that they would thank him in the end does that make it ok to do it? And even if it does, & even if it is the only way to achieve his perfect end he is still responsible for their suffering in that if he hadn't created them they would not have suffered. They suffer, but he does not. Unless, of course, his entry into Arda (cf Athrabeth) means that he too suffers as they do.

Well this is, I suppose, the difference of Eru and the Christian God, whatever Tolkien wanted to draw that parallel true or not, Eru does scarcely intervene, where the Christian God does precisely what you said - he expresses solidarity and in the person of Christ he even participates on the suffering himself. I am not familiar with the Athrabeth, however, only from summarized version, so I don't know how close the parallel is in that point - you probably are not getting an answer on this from me.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

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

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

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

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

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

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

We, of course, cannot say for certain.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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