Inherent Evil

[The Saucepan Man]

I see a very big difference between being evil and understanding that evil can exist. I can see that someone can break the law without ever breaking the law myself. (Nils)

I believe too believe that evil was "within" Eru, but I do not understand your definition of "within." (Lord of Angmar)

How could Eru understand the concept of evil in a pre-Creation universe if there was not evil within him? How else could he gain this knowledge?

Perhaps the answer is that it is the potential to do evil, ie act contrary to the standards which he defines as good, that is within him. Although you have a good point, Lord of Angmar, when you say:

if he acted in an evil way it could no longer be considered evil because he is the Creator of Ea and his actions pertaining to Ea are therefore the "right" ones.

That opens up the possibilty of a universe where the Creator exercises his potential for evil so that to act in a way that we would consider evil would actually be the "right" way to act. [img]smilies/eek.gif[/img]

But, I suppose that's all hypothetical as Iluvatar never exercised that particular option. He had Melkor to do it for him. [img]smilies/evil.gif[/img]

OK, back to my original question. Accepting that Iluvatar is good (ie does not exercise his option of committing evil thereby creating a world where evil acts are acceptable by his standards), why would he not allow the Orcs the possibility of redemption when they had no choice in being born as Orcs in the first place?

[Nils]

why would he not allow the Orcs the possibility of redemption when they had no choice in being born as Orcs in the first place?

This assumes of course that Orcs have souls.

In any case, I believe this comment from Morgoth's Ring applies:

The Elves certainly held and taught that fear or ‘spirits’ may grow of their own life (independently of the body), even as they may be hurt and healed, be diminished and renewed.*

*The following was added marginally after the page was written: If they do not sink below a cerain level. Since no fea can be annihilated, reduced to zero or not-existing, it is no[t] clear what is meant. Thus Sauron was said to have fallen below the point of ever recovering, though he had previously recovered. What is probably meant is that a ‘wicked’ spirit becomes fixed in a certain desire or ambition, and if it connot repent then this desire becomes virtually its whole being. But the desire may be wholly beyond the weakness it has fallen to, and it will then be unable to withdraw its attention from the unobtainable desire, even to attend to itself. It will then remain for ever in impotent desire or memory of desire.

Combine that with what I quoted earlier:

It remains therefore terribly possible there was an Elvish strain in the Orcs. These may then even have been mated with beasts (sterile!) - and later Men. Their life-span would be diminished. And dying they would go to Mandos and be held in prison till the End.

If the Orcs had Elven souls, then it would be their inability to repent that would make it that they could not be redeemed.

If the Orcs had Mannish Souls, then I would suppose that they would pass through the Halls of Mandos and join the souls of all Men. I don't remember anything about Men ever having to be redeemed.

[The Saucepan Man]

This assumes of course that Orcs have souls.

I hold that they do. Whatever thoughts Tolkien may have had later on the subject, they are clearly, to my mind, portrayed in LotR as rational beings with souls. If nothing else, the conversation between Shagrat and Gorbag in the Tower of Cirith Ungol establishes that for me.

Since no fea can be annihilated, reduced to zero or not-existing, it is no[t] clear what is meant. Thus Sauron was said to have fallen below the point of ever recovering, though he had previously recovered. What is probably meant is that a ‘wicked’ spirit becomes fixed in a certain desire or ambition, and if it connot repent then this desire becomes virtually its whole being

Yes, that makes sense. I can understand why Sauron should not have the opprtunity to repent, since he chose to follow the path of evil of his own free will. But the Orcs never had any choice. They were born evil. So how can a "good" divine being deny them the opportunity of redmeption in those circumstances?

And dying they would go to Mandos and be held in prison till the End.

This might be interpreted as suggesting the opportunity of repentance following the Dagor Dagorath. Although, even if that were the case, it still seems unfair that they should have to wait so long when they had no choice in the first place.

[Nils]

If you are going to say "no they must have souls", but Eru (represented by Tolkien) says "no they don't", then I don't believe Eru need live up to your expectation.

Having said that, I don't think you gave my comment about having Man's soul much thought.


Mithadan,

I just dated both Letter 153 (1954) and section VIII of Myths Transformed(1959). I believe the later thoughts hold more weight.

[The Saucepan Man]

If you are going to say "no they must have souls", but Eru (represented by Tolkien) says "no they don't", then I don't believe Eru need live up to your expectation.

Well, I'm with the Windlord on this one. I first read LotR many years ago, before the Letters or the HoME series were ever published. And I formed an impression of Orcs as rational beings based upon how I understood the Book to be portraying them (which , I think, reflected author's intention at the time of writing).

To see the Orcs as anything other than rational beings makes a mockery, to my mind, of the scenes where they are conversing, in particular (as I have said) the conversation between Shagrat and Gorbag. And, as I understand it, if the Orcs are sentient beings, then they have souls.

Having said that, I don't think you gave my comment about having Man's soul much thought.

No, because it is said in the Silmarillion that they were, in origin, Elves. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[tinewelt]

Here Here!!! [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[Nils]

No, because it is said in the Silmarillion that they were, in origin, Elves.

What ever gets published first. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

From The Two Towers, Treebeard

But Trolls are only counterfeits, made by the Enemy in the Great Darnkness, in mockery of Ents, as Orcs were of Elves.

If you are going to base your view of Orcs on the Trilogy and your early understanding, then why not believe Orcs to be rational creatures created by the Enemy?

If you are going to base your view of Orcs on the Silmarillion, then I'd think that all of Tolkien's writings that were never published should be taken into consideration.

Oh well, I guess all that can be said is that you go with the early stuff and I go with the later stuff.

One thing your question does bring to mind is the predestination concept of Christianity. The Bible says that the created are not to judge the creator. Of course, that does not hold water with all that are created. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[Durelin]

Ah, here's a new thought. The Treebeard quote from Nils got me thinking.

The Orcs in The Lord of the Rings are different altogether from those in the Silmarillion.

Let me explain...

Obviously, Sauron could not have had such a large army without breeding Orcs. Either with other Orcs, or prehaps with some other fell creature. Thus, we get something seperate from the first Orcs: the tortured Elves. Plus, Sauron could have made improvements to the design at any time, making them more and more creatures and less and less a race such as Elves or Men.

I know that you can argue that Tolkien viewed them as a race...at one point. I agree with Nils that Tolkien was not sure about this. So, at one point they were, later they were not.

This topic is an excellent one since there really is not answer, it seems, since Tolkien isn't sure on the matter himself. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] Fun fun!

[Lord of Angmar]

Obviously, Sauron could not have had such a large army without breeding Orcs. Either with other Orcs, or prehaps with some other fell creature. Thus, we get something seperate from the first Orcs: the tortured Elves.

--Durelin

One characteristic of a "race" as we consider it today is the ability to breed offspring who are not impotent and who share characteristics with their parents. It was obviously by art that we do not understand that the Elves were corrupted into Orcs, meaning that they became a new race and their offspring did not have Elvish qualities. In other words, somehow their genetic construct was altered (debating how this was done would be a fruitless exercise... some things in Tolkien's world just aren't meant to be questioned). This made their race original, and explains their ability to breed.

But we digress from the original question, which has been debated finely from many angles.

I would like to sum up the questions that have been discussed and attempted to present my own answers.

1. Are orcs inherently evil as a race? Can they do no good?

No. In my opinion, they do have the capability to do good. Tolkien, after all, was a Catholic and thus probably did not believe in the entire evil or goodness of a being or a race.

2. Is evil a state which exists because it was present in the Creator Himself?

I think this is the debate which has been most heavily argued in this thread. There were good points on all sides. I believe that evil in Tolkien's world is any action or virtue that conflicts with Eru's thought of how Ea and all of the life therein should be ordered. This is a fundamental Christian idea. If the Creator did not intend or purpose for something to be, then it should not be. In this case, you could say that the Orcs are "evil", being entities that Eru did not purpose to be alive within his world. Does Eru have the capacity for evil? This is an unanswerable question, because, as I said earlier, any action that he takes cannot be considered evil since his Creation is ultimate. Obviously he knows of the concept of evil, which in his mind is Melkor's conflict with the harmony of his themes and the discord that it wrought on Ea.

3. Do orcs have a will and soul within Ea?

I believe so. Just the simple fact that the orcs in the Two Towers are discussing what they want and what they wish for is enough to convince me that they have a will, and in my opinion a will is the physical realization of a soul.

4. Can orcs be redeemed in or after life?

In my own humble opinion, it is entirely possible for an orc to be redeemed, although I doubt that in mortal life an orc can be "cleansed" of its baneful characteristics. Again, based on Tolkien's devout Catholicism, I am forced to believe that there is some sort of purgatory (akin or equal to the Ring of Doom where Melkor was held in bonds for three ages), where creatures that fall under the category of "evil" in the eyes of the Creator can be absolved. Perhaps even Melkor, after the last battle and his ultimate doom, will be absolved.

I did not mean this as a summation of this thread, just as clarification and organization (for myself as much as for anyone else [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] ) of my views on all the key topics in this discussion.

Cheers!

[Mithadan]

Treebeard's words are also addressed in Letter 153. There Tolkien says:

Treebeard does not say that the Dark Lord 'created' Trolls and Orcs. He says he 'made' them in counterfeit of certain creatures pre-existing. There is, to me, a wide gulf between the two statements...

Tolkien then proceeds with the 'rational incarnate' statement which I quoted above. Also keep in mind that while Treebeard was immensely old, he was not one of the 'wise'; i.e. not one of the Ainur privy to at least some portion of the truths concerning Tolkien's sub-created world. Thus his beliefs and indeed those of the Elves remaining in Middle Earth (who were uninformed of the Valar's views of Orcish origin - it is not clear that the Valar encountered Orcs before the First Age) are not necessarily the whole 'truth'.

The difficulty arising from the Morgoth's Ring materials is that they were often ideas in flux. Thus there are multiple views concerning Orcish origin. However, Tolkien does not seem to waver from his view that they arose in whole or in part from sentient Elves/Men who possessed Feär. This seems ratified by Tolkien's statement that Orcs would proceed to Mandos upon death. If they lacked Feär, there would be no need for this.

[Nils]

I agree that the Tolkien did not really come to grips with Orc Origins, but hey, he didn't really come to grips with the origins of the Sun, Moon and Stars either. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

What does seem clear to me is that Tolkien wanted Orcs to originate with Men instead of Elves. Chris Tolkien makes pretty much that exact statement in Morgoth's Ring.

[The Saucepan Man]

Oh well, I guess all that can be said is that you go with the early stuff and I go with the later stuff. (Nils)

Well, I'd prefer to say that I go with the impressions that I have gained from reading the Books, and which make sense to me.

And if I learn subsequently that the author had later ideas which conflict with those impressions, particularly if (as is the case with the origins and sentience of Orcs), they are unresolved, I do not feel that I am bound to accept them. I am happy to if they make sense to me, but Orcs as soulless, non-rational beasts just doesn't make sense, based on how they are portrayed in LotR.

One characteristic of a "race" as we consider it today is the ability to breed offspring who are not impotent and who share characteristics with their parents. It was obviously by art that we do not understand that the Elves were corrupted into Orcs, meaning that they became a new race and their offspring did not have Elvish qualities. (Lord of Angmar)

Obviously, Sauron could not have had such a large army without breeding Orcs. Either with other Orcs, or prehaps with some other fell creature. Thus, we get something seperate from the first Orcs: the tortured Elves. Plus, Sauron could have made improvements to the design at any time, making them more and more creatures and less and less a race such as Elves or Men. (Durelin)

Yes, although Orcs originated as debased Elves, they did (as I understand it)subsequently breed amongst themselves. So, later generations would not be debased Elves, but the offspring of debased Elves or the offspring of the offspring of debased Elves, and so on. And yes, they were bred by Sauron (and probably by Morgoth before him), whether selectively or with other races, to create different strains: the Uruk Hai, for example. But I don't see why either of those processes should deny them their rationality or their soul.

What does seem clear to me is that Tolkien wanted Orcs to originate with Men instead of Elves. (Nils)

I don't have a problem with the concept of Orcs originating from Men. Indeed, it would solve a lot of problems, such as whether or not they are immortal and whether or not their souls go to Mandos when they die. Questions such as these are, I believe, why Tolkien started thinking in terms of Orcs as debased Men. My difficulty, however, is a logical/temporal one. How could Orcs have their origin in Man when Orcs were around before Men awoke?

However, Tolkien does not seem to waver from his view that they arose in whole or in part from sentient Elves/Men who possessed Feär. (Mithadan)

So I would conclude that, whether they originated from Men or Elves, and however subsequent breeding (amongst themselves or by Morgoth and Sauron) might have affected them, Orcs are rational beings with souls.

Which once again brings me back to my (still unresolved) question:

Accepting that Iluvatar is good ... why would he not allow the Orcs the possibility of redemption when they had no choice in being born as Orcs in the first place?

[Yavanna228]

Concerning the way orcs were supposed to have reproduced, here is a brief passage from the Silmarillion which I offer knowing full well the criticism I'll receive because I'm using that as a source. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

...and thus did Melkor breed the hideous race of the Orcs in envy and mockery of the Elves, of whom they were afterwards the bitterest foes. For the Orcs had life and multiplied after the manner of the Children of Iluvatar; and naught that had life of its own, nor the semblance of life, could ever Melkor make since his rebellion in the Ainulindale before the Beginning: so say the wise.

Peace

[Mithadan]

It does seem that JRRT was leaning towards a Mannish origin for Orcs later in his life. It just isn't clear that he made a final decision on this issue. Further, a Mannish origin would have at least indirectly contradicted LoTR. While this could be solved by a new modified edition, it always seemed to me that he hesitated to change what was already published.

The conversation between Gorbag and Shagrat about "the bad old times", seemingly referring to a distant past is well known and often cited. Less well known is the age of Bolg, son of Azog. Azog was slain in the Battle of Nanduhirion in TA 2799. His son Bolg was slain in the Battle of Five Armies in TA 2941, 142 years later suggesting that Orcs were at least long lived, indicating at a minumum a partial Elvish origin.

[Nils]

And if I learn subsequently that the author had later ideas which conflict with those impressions, particularly if (as is the case with the origins and sentience of Orcs), they are unresolved, I do not feel that I am bound to accept them. I am happy to if they make sense to me, but Orcs as soulless, non-rational beasts just doesn't make sense, based on how they are portrayed in LotR.

I take it then that you consider the Silmarillion to be one of those original books that you base your ideas on.

I guess it depends on one's age as to the Silmarillion's influence on one's original view of Middle-earth.

I posted the quote from Treebeard to point out the fact that the Two Towers has an 'orc origins' theory. For those who are older, I'd think that the Silmarillion would fall under the category of subsequent information.

I don't have a problem with the concept of Orcs originating from Men. Indeed, it would solve a lot of problems, such as whether or not they are immortal and whether or not their souls go to Mandos when they die. Questions such as these are, I believe, why Tolkien started thinking in terms of Orcs as debased Men. My difficulty, however, is a logical/temporal one. How could Orcs have their origin in Man when Orcs were around before Men awoke?

It seems to me that this problem is easily solved by moving up Man's time of awakening. Take that and the different kinds of Orcs (Maiar, beast, Men) and I believe the 'Man theory' could fit rather well.

It would require a little work on the published Silmarillion, but since JRR did not publish it, I don't think it should be held in too high regard. Even if Tolkien had published it, he was not above editing his older work to make corrections.

Concerning the way orcs were supposed to have reproduced, here is a brief passage from the Silmarillion which I offer knowing full well the criticism I'll receive because I'm using that as a source.

It isn't the mere fact that it is from the Silmarillion that makes the information suspect, it also has to do with how the information fits with Tolkien's later thoughts on the subject.


Mithadan,

His son Bolg was slain in the Battle of Five Armies in TA 2941, 142 years later suggesting that Orcs were at least long lived, indicating at a minumum a partial Elvish origin.

Or perhaps Maiar.

OK, one other possibility comes to mind:

The Mouth of Sauron had unnaturally long life without a ring of power. Why couldn't an Orc learn to do the same?

[ July 31, 2003: Message edited by: Nils ]

[Gwaihir the Windlord]

Forgive me if this interrupts the discussion in any way, but I'm going to be hailing back a couple of days to the posts immediately following my last one for this reply (this thread having apparently become incredibly popular over those two days). I feel that I am being totally misunderstood by a certain Nils in what I say, over two points.

First, though, a message directed at the Lord of Angmar, who said this:

Gwaihir, when Tolkien used the word "slaves" I do not think that he intended it to be so narrow as to limit it to one race. I believe that this term encompasses all the minions of Sauron, of which the chief party was orcs.

Do you honestly think that Aragorn would give Men and Orcs the same land together to live in? This is totally incompatible. The quote in which the liberation of Sauron's slaves is found in, I think, is probably talking about how Aragorn dealt with the Men that served Sauron, as it also talks about Harad and Rhun. The land of Nurn was in fact inhabited by human slaves in the first place, so it was that land that he gave them.

You said that this is a minor issue, but I disagree. This was, as people were arguing, the only apparent time when Orcs were 'forgiven' and set free to do as they wished. If it didn't happen, as it probably (to my judgement anyway [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]) didn't, then there is no case at all of the Orcs deserving any forgiveness and gifts from Men or Elves. There were many wise leaders of both races, and of the Valar, and none considered the Orcs to be capable of being redeemed -- at least in Arda.

So this significantly damages the (still wierd-seeming) idea of Orcs not being evil.

Nils, I see where you are coming from, but I don't think you quite understand me. Anyway I'm just going to conclude it for you.
From you:

Evidently you don't believe that Middle-earth is Tolkien's world. If you did, then you wouldn't believe certain things were just Tolkien's personal ideas. According to Tolkien, Eru is good and is not evil. Eru is not in a fallen state. It seems to me that you are introducing your own personal view of God (at least 'if' God exists God must be both good and evil).

Of course Arda is Tolkien's world, but still of course he had personal ideas that I may or may not agree with. What you would have me do is simply recite Tolkien's quotes and fall into the ideas and beliefs he held, not making any independant observations of my own. I am not Tolkien (although I immensely enjoy his work) and may in the occasional circumstance be allowed an individual idea of my own, don't you think? I don't know how you are going to be operating in your posts here as I haven't seen many of them yet, and the method you advocate may be fine for you. I personally wish to be more thoughful than that.

Independant observations are all I am making. I assure you that Tolkien's words, when they concern his work, are held as very important to me.

Eru is not in a fallen state.

This is the second thing. Perhaps I should explain it out a bit more. I did not imply at all that Eru was 'fallen', as, then, I would not be fit to be in here. Illuvatar is of course God, the lord of all. What I see in Tolkien is that the Ainur, the world of Ea and everything in it proceeds directly from Tolkien, so that it is really a kind of great Thought and dream of his with a beginning and an end that takes form. Thus, everything on earth is his ultimately;

In the end he shall see that nothing is done that hath not its uttermost source in me.

Do you see now? That is my observation, that does not seem to be contradicted by anything Tolkien says, my conclusion that I have come to from his work. To be 'fallen', Illuvatar would have to be totally corrupted. Clearly not the case, and I didn't imply it; Illuvatar is indeed good, the highest of all things. If what I have talked about is the case, then every mood and way of thinking is reflected in the all-encompassing mind of Illuvatar;

There was Eru, the One, who in Arda is called Illuvatar; and he made first the Ainur, the Holy Ones, that were the offspring of his thought... for each comprehended only that part of the mind of Illuvatar from which he came, and in the understanding of their brethren they grew but slowly. Yet ever as they listened they came to deepr understanding, and increased in unison and harmony..

(Forgive me for using the Silm and not a later source, but as it is in fact the foundation of Tolkien's literature and a damn relevent piece of writing, I felt it would be fitting to use this passage to exemplify what I am saying. [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]

Finally, the last part of your post that I'll reply to:

It seems to me that you are introducing your own personal view of God (at least 'if' God exists God must be both good and evil).

It occurs to me that perhaps you are over-parallelling the Eru of Ea to the Christian God. This parallell is there, but the two are not exactly the same. C.S. Lewis used his fantasy to parallell Christian theology, but Tolkien -- while similar in some ways -- is really a thing of its own.

Anyway, that's it -- again, sorry for not participating in the recent (i.e. within last day =/) discussions, but I felt I needed to take this up. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[ August 01, 2003: Message edited by: Gwaihir the Windlord ]

[Nils]

Independant observations are all I am making. I assure you that Tolkien's words, when they concern his work, are held as very important to me.

So why don't you believe that Orcs were created by Melkor?

If you consider the Silmarillion to be one of JRR's works, then why do you consider the Silmarillion a more important work than Morgoth's Ring?

What I see in Tolkien is that the Ainur, the world of Ea and everything in it proceeds directly from Tolkien, so that it is really a kind of great Thought and dream of his with a beginning and an end that takes form. Thus, everything on earth is his ultimately;

In the end he shall see that nothing is done that hath not its uttermost source in me.

Do you see now? That is my observation, that does not seem to be contradicted by anything Tolkien says, my conclusion that I have come to from his work.

But it does contradict the fall.

Tolkien was writing a myth that revealed the truth of this world. It didn't have to do with what was within Tolkien. He was not creating mere fantasy. He was trying to describe how the world actually works.

If your understanding of that quote from the Silmarillion is correct, then how could there be a 'fallen state'? If no matter what we do, we are following Eru's plan, how could anything we do be outside that plan?

The only way that I can see that quote fitting into the theme of the 'fallen state' is through the concept of sub-creation. I believe that is why Tolkien wrote so much about that topic.

Through the concept of sub-creation (Eru giving a part of his power to create to his own creation) Tolkien was able to give the created beings the ability to 'fall', while having that ability to 'fall' originating with Eru.

Each being is not some part of Eru's personality. Each being is seperate and distinct, but its powers originate with Eru's power. All Eru was telling Morgoth was that no matter what Morgoth tried to create out of the 'good' power Eru entrusted him with, the end result must be 'good'.

Morgoth tried to do his own thing and fell. That makes Morgoth evil.

Although it may appear for a time that Melkor had succeeded, Eru's creations did not have the power to corrupt the power that Eru entrusted his creation with.

If what I have talked about is the case, then every mood and way of thinking is reflected in the all-encompassing mind of Illuvatar;

It seems to me that your view is that Eru's creation do not have free will at all. They are not independent creations, they are different manefestations of Eru's own personality. In other words, creation is a physical manefestation of Eru's personality. Manwe represents this part of Eru, while Melkor represents another. That the battle between good and evil represents the battle within Eru himself.

In other words, nothing is an original creation. Clearly, this is not the case.

There was Eru, the One, who in Arda is called Illuvatar; and he made first the Ainur, the Holy Ones, that were the offspring of his thought... for each comprehended only that part of the mind of Illuvatar from which he came, and in the understanding of their brethren they grew but slowly. Yet ever as they listened they came to deeper understanding, and increased in unison and harmony.

Just because Eru came up with the idea of the Ainu and used his thoughts to create them does not mean that each Ainu represents a component of Eru's personality.

Forgive me for using the Silm and not a later source, but as it is in fact the foundation of Tolkien's literature and a damn relevent piece of writing, I felt it would be fitting to use this passage to exemplify what I am saying.

Nice sarcasm, but at least you are recognizing the fact that Tolkien did have other writings.

It occurs to me that perhaps you are over-parallelling the Eru of Ea to the Christian God.

It seems to me that Tolkien was heavily influenced by his Christian beliefs. As I said earlier, Tolkien was trying to reveal how things actually worked in his myth. Since Tolkien was a Christian, he tried to portray how Christianity says things work.

[Lord of Angmar]

"If what I have talked about is the case, then every mood and way of thinking is reflected in the all-encompassing mind of Illuvatar;"

It seems to me that your view is that Eru's creation do not have free will at all. They are not independent creations, they are different manefestations of Eru's own personality. In other words, creation is a physical manefestation of Eru's personality. Manwe represents this part of Eru, while Melkor represents another. That the battle between good and evil represents the battle within Eru himself.

In other words, nothing is an original creation. Clearly, this is not the case.

I do not think that was Gwaihir's point at all. He was stating that Iluvatar understands every mood and every type of thought that lies within his creations. Surely every type of mood and every type of thought within the minds of his Children is reflected somewhere in his mind, the source of his creation.

Just because Eru came up with the idea of the Ainu and used his thoughts to create them does not mean that each Ainu represents a component of Eru's personality.

While the Ainur may not have each individually acquired one "component" of Eru's being, surely they gleaned from his mind and his inner thought a good deal. They were influenced by him as his creations and as his labourers, living for ages upon ages in a world first conceived by him. They had no other source of personality definition but Eru and Ea, their Creator and His Creation.

You say that the Ainur did not receive different separate components, yet for the Valar this may be somewhat the case. Each Vala loves a different part of the world, and each has vastly different character traits (silent Mandos, hearty and jovial Tulkas, stern and subtle Aule, etc.). Surely this is some indication that different facets of the mind of Iluvatar were passed onto the Ainur.

I agree, Nils, with what you are saying about the 'fallen' state, although I do not agree that this was Gwaihir or Saucepan Man's meaning when they suggested that evil was within the Creator Himself.

Tolkien, as a Christian, would be inclined to believe that the state of being 'fallen' from paradise or from wisdom is, in essence, the state of being evil. It is shown time and again in all of his 'evil characters'. Melkor is the original, the Fallen Angel, the Lucifer of Tolkien's world, as it were. In him the seed of 'evil' lived, planted there at the beginning from somewhere deep in the heart and thought of Iluvatar. From him all evil things grew; it was he who corrupted Sauron, the 'Lesser Angel', if you will, the Maia. It was he who broke the minds of and corrupted the Elves or Men (depending on what source you decide to look at) and 'created' the orcs. The Balrogs were originally Maiar, and they became 'fallen' beings too, serving the Dark Lord. The Nazgul and Saruman were also 'fallen', the former from noble Kings of Men and the latter from being a friend and helper to the foes of Sauron.

In my mind, nothing started out 'evil', but when Iluvatar conceived of the possibility of evil, of rebellion against his will, then it became a reality, and thus was bestowed (knowingly or just by chance) upon one of the Ainur, Melkor, who just so happened to be the most powerful. It was he who then brought evil into Ea, falling from the ranks of the Valar and being totally encompassed by evil. If there was anything in Middle Earth that was 'inherently' evil, it was Morgoth, who, it is stated in the Silmarillion and in Morgoth's Ring, was, after his imprisonment in the Ring of Doom, totally incapable of redemption. He was the original in that 'fallen' state, and all other evil beings 'fell' as a direct or indirect result.

I hope my ideas makes sense to people. What I am trying to say is that, while evil first was conceived in Eru's mind, it was the reflection of this idea into the mind of Melkor which actually CREATED evil as an entity in Ea. It was possible for Eru to understand evil without being in a 'fallen' state.

[ August 01, 2003: Message edited by: Lord of Angmar ]

[Nils]

I do not think that was Gwaihir's point at all. He was stating that Iluvatar understands every mood and every type of thought that lies within his creations. Surely every type of mood and every type of thought is reflected somewhere in his mind, the source of his creation.

I can't get around the fact that this will logically mean that Eru is in part evil, based on Eru's own definition of evil. That the only way Eru' would not be evil would be if Eru changes the rules.

In other words, Eru is an evil dictator. Which is the way many see God, but I'm not one of them. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

There is still that little part that is different enough from what I am saying that I can't agree

While the Ainur may not have each individually acquired on "component" of Eru's being, surely they gleaned from his mind and his inner thought a good deal.

I believe this is that little part.

Why is this surely the case?

They were influenced by him as his creations and as his labourers, living for ages upon ages in a world first conceived by him. They had no other source of personality definition but Eru and Ea, their Creator and His Creation.

So you don't believe in free will and that each of us is totally responsible for what we do.

It is entirely possible that Eru created beings that are totally distinct. They are a seperate creation, given the ability to sub-create.

Each Vala loves a different part of the world, and each has vastly different character traits (silent Mandos, hearty and jovial Tulkas, stern and subtle Aule, etc.). Surely this is some indication that different facets of the mind of Iluvatar were passed onto the Ainur.

Or they could just be their seperate personalities. Their personalities tied into the sub-creative power given to them by Eru.

In him the seed of 'evil' lived, planted there at the beginning from somewhere deep in the heart and thought of Iluvatar.

Why must this be the case? Why can't Melkor choose to rebel against Eru's designs on his own?

From him all evil things grew

No, he was the example of rebellion. He was the first to rebel. Each individual spirit that rebelled against Eru's designs simply followed Melkor's example. Melkor did not 'make them do it'. The sub-created did not have that power over any other sub-creation.

it was he who corrupted Sauron, the 'Lesser Angel', if you will, the Maia.

No, Melkor was the example, but he could not corrupt them. Each one had to choose to follow Melkor's example. Each one corrupted his/her self.

It was he who broke the minds of and corrupted the Elves or Men (depending on what source you decide to look at) and 'created' the orcs.

As far as the incarnates go, their bodies were corrupted, which led to their souls being corrupted. They still had the chance to redeem themselves after their fear were seperated from the hroar. Melkor had no such direct influence on the Ealar (Ainur).

In my mind, nothing started out 'evil', but when Iluvatar conceived of the possibility of evil, of rebellion against his will, then it became a reality, and thus was bestowed (knowingly or just by chance) upon one of the Ainur, Melkor, who just so happened to be the most powerful.

Is it that Eru forced the most powerful to fall (included is Feanor) or is it that great power is very seductive and leads to the fall?

[Nils]

Something just struck me while rereading my post:

Or they could just be their seperate personalities. Their personalities tied into the sub-creative power given to them by Eru.

Melkor was originally good. He did not rebel. Did his rebellion come as result of a hidden time bomb or was it a result of Melkor's growth?

In other words, is Melkor a result of his 'genetics or enviroment'? How we react to the world is greatly influenced by how we perceive the world. How we perceive the world is greatly influenced by our prior experience. Part of that experience is how the world reacts to us.

Since the powerful are rewarded by acting in an evil way, evil behavior is reinforced. Seeing that one can do certain things leads to a sense of arrogance, that leads to pride that leads to the fall.

In that equation somewhere comes self control. In that equation somewhere lies the knowledge that using the greater power to 'win' is wrong and will lead ultimately to destruction. At least once its been seen to happen. Perhaps Melkor did not see the end result of his choice to use his power to force his desire, but others like Gandalf did and chose to reject the ring of 'power'.

[Lord of Angmar]

I see what you are saying, Nils, but I still think you are reading my words out of context. I do not believe that Eru is an 'evil dictator'. Far from it. I am saying that since everything is his Creation then he is an influence on EVERY SINGLE THING in the world. It is impossible to create without influencing, just as it is impossible to observe without changing. His creations would inherently be influenced by him.

Why must this be the case? Why can't Melkor choose to rebel against Eru's designs on his own?

Or they could just be their seperate personalities. Their personalities tied into the sub-creative power given to them by Eru.

While they certainly have sub-creative powers, no being really has the ability to CREATE their own personality. The personality is the direct result of the environment. Since they were created and taught by Iluvatar, and since they lived in a world conceived by him, their underlying personalities would reflect his own ideas and his creations. In other words, their personalities would be a reflection of Iluvatar because it was Iluvatar who set the pretense for the creation of their disposition (by creating them, teaching them and giving them a world to inhabit).

Melkor was turned to evil because of the disposition he developed as a Child of Iluvatar. How else could Melkor have risen up in rebellion against Iluvatar's theme? He did not have any previous knowledge of rebellion and did not have any influences outside of the Halls of Iluvatar. Therefore it must have been an affect of Iluvatar on Melkor that he learned how to rebel. A child does not learn how to speak unless they hear others speak, to walk unless others walk, etc. Since Iluvatar was the only teacher the Valar had, their personalities were reflections (distorted or blown up though they may have been) of parts of his own.

So you don't believe in free will and that each of us is totally responsible for what we do.

I am a firm believer in free will. But every will must have a starting point, a background. A baby cannot simply wake up and decide the course it will take. It is influenced, above all else, by its surroundings. The surroundings of an infant and the ideas of that infant's guardians are what mold that child's personality. Children are not born with a certain disposition, nor can they simply create it. IT IS A DIRECT RESULT OF THEIR ENVIRONMENT, to quote myself earlier in this entry.

Only when the background is completely laid and personality moulded can an individual truly assert free will over their lives.

[Nils]

see what you are saying, Nils, but I still think you are reading my words out of context. I do not believe that Eru is an 'evil dictator'. Far from it.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that believed God to be an evil dictator. I just meant that the point of view you are taking can logically lead to that conclusion.

It is impossible to create without influencing, just as it is impossible to observe without changing. His creations would inherently be influenced by him.

Perhaps what is impossible for us, is possible for God. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

The personality is the direct result of the environment. Since they were created and taught by Iluvatar, and since they lived in a world conceived by him, their underlying personalities would reflect his own ideas and his creations.

Personality is not just enviroment. It is a combination of many factors, which include something we are born with and how we react to the enviroment. If by world you mean Ea, then I must submit that the Melkor's rebellion had a hand in the creation of that world. I guess it could be seen as a self-fulfilling prophecy. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Melkor was turned to evil because of the disposition he developed as a Child of Iluvatar. How else could Melkor have risen up in rebellion against Iluvatar's theme?

Free Will, which is a concept that Tolkien clearly states is a part of his myth.

He did not have any previous knowledge of rebellion and did not have any influences outside of the Halls of Iluvatar. Therefore it must have been an affect of Iluvatar on Melkor that he learned how to rebel.

He was the most powerful of the Ainur and he did have interaction with them. Perhaps he developed the pride and arrogance to believe that he should have his own way. This pride, which he was not created with, but a possibility to for, was his own doing, not Eru's.

A child does not learn how to speak unless they hear others speak, to walk unless others walk, etc. Since Iluvatar was the only teacher the Valar had, their personalities were reflections (distorted or blown up though they may have been) of parts of his own.

As I stated earlier, the Ainur also interacted with each other and learned from these experiences. They were not just programmed by Eru.

A baby cannot simply wake up and decide the course it will take.

Eru did not create babies. The Ainur would be equivalent to Adam, a full grown man. As far as I can tell from the text, the Ainur were created with the ability to communicate.

Children are not born with a certain disposition,

I couldn't disagree with you more. From the time my children were born they were very different.

Only when the background is completely laid and personality moulded can an individual truly assert free will over their lives.

Considering the fact that we are always growing and our personality is always changing, I must disagree with this statement.

[Durelin]

Tolkien, after all, was a Catholic and thus probably did not believe in the entire evil or goodness of a being or a race.

Uh...I'm pretty sure Catholics believe that a person can be entirely good. We are the ones with all the Saints, you know.

In other words, Eru is an evil dictator. Which is the way many see God, but I'm not one of them.

Phew, you had me going there for a moment, Nils... [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

Evil in the Creator himself? Now, if we are going on the fact that Tolkien was strongly Catholic and based much of this on his beliefs, then we shouldn't be asking this at all. But, since we do not know how much he based on his faith and how much he did not...

If there was evil in Eru, then there would be evil in all his creations, and none of them would be entirely good. What a clever thing! But...we come upon this: does what Eru create have a choice as to letting that evil or the good in them take control? Then you think, if Melkor created something out of evil, they wouldn't have a choice. But...Melkor did not create anything, he only adjusted and changed, and possibly bred together for a different combination. Therefore, they had the choice. So, the Orcs had a choice to be evil or not, and, driven by fear, they chose to.

[img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]

Come on! I'm waiting for that rebuddle! Now where is it? [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[The Saucepan Man]

Free Will, which is a concept that Tolkien clearly states is a part of his myth. (Nils)

Yes, Eru created beings with free will. He knew that beings with free will could potentially rebel against his own will. He therefore created potentially evil beings.

But it is, of course, up to the individual whether he exercises that free will to commit evil. That is the very essence of free will. So, Eru didn't cause evil to exist. He created the potential for it to exist. In that sense, evil does has its source in him.

Melkor freely chose to commit evil. So did Sauron and Saruman. Neither of them were forced to commit evil, however much they might have been influenced. There were countless other Maiar who did not choose the same path. I can therefore understand why the likes of Sauron and Saruman should not have been offered the opportunity of redemption at the end.

But Orcs are different.

But...Melkor did not create anything, he only adjusted and changed, and possibly bred together for a different combination. Therefore, they had the choice. So, the Orcs had a choice to be evil or not, and, driven by fear, they chose to. (Durelin)

I do not agree with this. Whether they were originally Men or Elves (and I still prefer to go with the Elf origin idea [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] ), it seems clear to me that they had no choice but to become Orcs. Melkor saw to that. And if we accept that Orcs, once they came into existence, were inherently evil, then they had no possibility of choosing to act in a good way. They could, by their nature, only act in an evil way. In that sense, they had very limited free will.

Now Eru did not create them that way. That was down to Melkor, who Eru created with free will. And since Melkor chose to exercise his free will (given to him by Eru) to commit evil and one of his evil acts was to create Orcs, and since those Orcs never had any choice but to be evil, it seems only fair to me that Eru should allow them some opportunity of redemption.

[Iarwain]

I agree very much with Saucepan. When Tolkien says that Melkor had committed the"greatest evil" of all in the corruption/creation of orcs, we ought to ask the basic question of why this is the greatest crime. Was it because he put them through horrible torture? I'd guess this was not the reason, because he did that many times in much more varied ways. Then, could it have been because he altered them and caused Eru's divine creation to permanently change? Perhaps, but he did the same thing (on a slightly lesser scale) with Dragons, Trolls, and other conscious things of creation too. Perhaps we should think more of what Eru gave to the "Children" that was truly unique. He gave them a destiny/destination (whichever you prefer), and he gave them a choice. The consequences of the choice I'll leave unexplored, because Tolkien's creation does not fulfill the need for explaination there, but the choice itself is big. Or is it? What are the consequences of the choice? If, in Middle-Earth one chose to live a life of justice and servitude, how would the ending consequences differ from if one chose to live a life of injustice and tyranny? I feel that I am horribly off topic, but the thought-train express has taken me here, and I believe that the roots of a new discussion are sitting in what I've just been thinking and writing. I'm off.

Iarwain

[Nils]

I think that the 'Man Origin' theory throws a paticularly cool twist into the redemption question.

As far as I know, there is no judgement for Man in Tolkien's Myth. All that we know is that Man passes through the Halls of Mandos. There doesn't seem to be a reward or a punishment.

If this is so, then there is no need for redemption. [img]smilies/eek.gif[/img]


[img]smilies/cool.gif[/img] It appears as if Iarwain's and my post got crossed and that we were thinking along the same lines.

[ August 01, 2003: Message edited by: Nils ]

[Iarwain]

Well, if Nils and I are correct, then it really wouldn't matter as an issue of cruelty to label the entire race of orcs as fallen or condemned, because even if they were, their condemnation would never recieve a sentence, much less an execution, as long as they are recognized as children.

Iarwain

[Gwaihir the Windlord]

You still don't have it, Nils. Listen for once and thou shalt understand.

To say that Eru, in the ultimate intellect of his mind, has a part of him that can understand and see the value of evil does not mean that he himself is an 'evil dictator'.

The Lord of Angmar has got what I was saying perfectly (actually I think he may have said it rather better than me). Eru's mind is the source of the Ainur. Each of these Ainur are different. I think it likely that they, all arrayed together, represent the various thoughts and comprehensions that make up Illuvatar's mind. Some, and especially one (Melkor) of these Ainur, see the use and power of evil and use it for their own ends.

As Melkor himself came from Illuvatar directly, it is clear that in the pre-mentioned 'all-encompassing intellect of Illuvatar' the kind of mind that Melkor has got is understood and known there. It does not mean that Illuvatar is like Melkor, because he isn't. He is also like Manwe, Yavanna, Mandos, Ulmo and all the others. As I said, his mind is all-encompassing and understands all of these minds. In the addition of Melkor to this, the capacity to recognise the power and use of evil is clearly also something that Eru posesses.

He sees all ends and purposes under heaven.

Because Illuvatar can comprehend the sort of intelligence that is evil, it does not mean at all that he is 'fallen' and utterly consumed by it himself. He is obviously not evil himself; I cannot believe your thick-skulledness in continuing to think that that is what I mean. I should think it was perfectly clear what I (and the Lord of Angmar) have been saying -- what I don't understand is how you came to reason out the so-called 'logic' you are attempting in your posts.

As for your 'free will' thing, you must realise that I am also not implicating that the creations (i.e. everyone) of Illuvatar do not have it. They do, obviously, as I said about the Orcs; that their apparent sense of intelligence -- and free-will -- makes the theory of their not having any sort of fëa unlikely-seeming. But the sort of mind that makes the free-willing choice to be evil is not the same as the one that makes the choice to be goodly. Each person is different. All I said is that Illuvatar's mind contains the essence of each of these minds, so that he can understand both; it does not mean that his mind is polluted by evil, only that he knows it and sees its purposes. Evil is comprehended by Illuvatar as well as it is by Melkor, but that does not mean that Illuvatar is Melkor (as you seem to think I am implicating). In a sense Eru can be said to see beyond it, which is something Melkor cannot.

-----

Your sense of logic is lacking in some other things you say, as well. It seems to follow the same lines as the above affair, i.e. jumping to remote conclusions from posts instead of actually really understanding what they are saying. Because I gave a quote from the Silmarillion and related that it was 'relevent' -- which you may deny if you'd like, to my further bewilderment -- it does not in any way imply that I consider Morgoth's Ring to be irrelevant. As you'll notice, I never actually said this or anything that could normally be interpreted as such.

One last request, Nils: before you go on to make another post that violently condemns everything I have said, understand that what you think I am trying to say -- as I obviously should know, as it is me that's trying to say it -- is not what I am actually saying. So please, stop putting words in my mouth and stop telling me what I am saying regardless of my honest protests that you have got me wrong; I already know what I am saying, and it is utterly pointless to tell me that I am saying something else when in fact I'm not.
If you have misunderstood it I have clarified for you. If I disagree with your idea of what I have been talking about in this thread, then that is obviously not what I have been talking about.

[Gwaihir the Windlord]

As an addition in response to Iarwain, you may be right. It all depends on whether there are implications for a being's evilness or not in redemption; but there might well be. To 'label' the Orcs as evil is something I am not doing, though, as I base my opinion on a backing that I believe is conclusive.

[Nils]

You still don't have it, Nils. Listen for once and thou shalt understand.

Nice sarcasm again. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Believe me, I get what you are saying.

I think it likely that they, all arrayed together, represent the various thoughts and comprehensions that make up Illuvatar's mind. Some, and especially one (Melkor) of these Ainur, see the use and power of evil and use it for their own ends.

I believe I accurately described this and said I disagreed with it when I said:

Each being is not some part of Eru's personality.

I am aware of the fact that I am basing my view of this on Tolkien's other writings that you don't believe hold much water.

As Melkor himself came from Illuvatar directly, it is clear that in the pre-mentioned 'all-encompassing intellect of Illuvatar' the kind of mind that Melkor has got is understood and known there. It does not mean that Illuvatar is like Melkor, because he isn't. He is also like Manwe, Yavanna, Mandos, Ulmo and all the others.

I never said you were saying he is 'only' like Melkor. From your statement "his is also like", it is pretty clear you mean that there is a component of Eru which is like Melkor.

You may not want to admit this and call me thick headed for pointing this out, but that's OK.

As I said, his mind is all-encompassing and understands all of these minds. In the addition of Melkor to this, the capacity to recognise the power and use of evil is clearly also something that Eru posesses.

It seems to me that you are basing this on assumption since Eru never uses his power for evil.

I find it very unlikely that Eru would use his power to go against his own plan. But hey, you look at God your way and I'll look at God my way.

Evil is comprehended by Illuvatar as well as it is by Melkor, but that does not mean that Illuvatar is Melkor (as you seem to think I am implicating). In a sense Eru can be said to see beyond it, which is something Melkor cannot.

I don't believe that Melkor understands evil. One need not understand something to be something. I agree with you that Eru does see beyond it which was something Melkor could not do.

it does not in any way imply that I consider Morgoth's Ring to be irrelevant. As you'll notice, I never actually said this or anything that could normally be interpreted as such.

Oh, I don't know, you said that Tolkien was just an observer. If you gave weight to what Morgoth's Ring says, you wouldn't hold the view that Orcs are Elves. That was my reason.

So please, stop putting words in my mouth and stop telling me what I am saying regardless of my honest protests that you have got me wrong; I already know what I am saying, and it is utterly pointless to tell me that I am saying something else when in fact I'm not.

Sorry if you don't see what I'm trying to say. It is as clear as day that you believe Eru has an evil component. As your 'also' remark points out.

[Lord of Angmar]

It seems to me that you are basing this on assumption since Eru never uses his power for evil.

I find it very unlikely that Eru would use his power to go against his own plan. But hey, you look at God your way and I'll look at God my way.

Sorry if you don't see what I'm trying to say. It is as clear as day that you believe Eru has an evil component

My dear Nils, I'm afraid you are still misinterpreting. We do not believe that Illuvatar is evil or has an evil 'side' or 'component'. We are merely stating that he comprehends evil and can understand the various facets of the evil mind. There is a difference between knowing evil and acting on evil, and we are simply saying that since Iluvatar is the creator of the world then the idea of evil originated within him.

I believe I accurately described this and said I disagreed with it when I said:

Each being is not some part of Eru's personality.

I am aware of the fact that I am basing my view of this on Tolkien's other writings that you don't believe hold much water.

It is not that we don't think that Morgoth's Ring does not 'hold water', it is just that it is no more or less definitive in answering our question than is the Silmarillion, so neither of us cannot be proven entirely right on the origin of orcs or on several other points that have differences between Morgoth's Ring and the Silmarillion.

Furthermore, it is perfectly fine to believe that each of the Ainur does not reflect a certain part of the mind of Eru. Arguments can be made for both sides, but we are not arguing against you. We are rather arguing for our belief in the context of this debate. You have not provided this thread with any textual argument that the differences in personality among the Valar are due to the creation of their own personalities.

What I am saying is - and I am not trying to sound harsh or overbearing - I think you have approached this debate from the wrong perspective. Breaking down each and every one of our entries line by line and picking it apart will not do anything for you or for us. The point here is not to win the debate so much as to glean new understanding of Tolkien's world from the debate. I do not think you are getting the 'Big Picture', as it were, of what others are saying.

In my mind, that 'Big Picture' can be crudely summed up like this:

1. Iluvatar is not 'evil'.
2. Iluvatar fully comprehends evil as an entity within his world, and understands the working of an evil mind, just as he understands all other facets of life and thought within the world that he created.
3. Melkor could not see past his own deeds and could not fully comprehend his own evil. He was, as Nils states, in a 'fallen' state.
4. Orcs, being corrupted Children of Iluvatar, cannot act in any manner that is not considered 'evil' by the incorrupt, but that does not mean that they cannot be redeemed. While they are 'inherently' moved to evil deeds, they are, by and large, the victims of harsh circumstance, and thus (probably) subject to redemption in the afterlife.

[ August 02, 2003: Message edited by: Lord of Angmar ]

[Nils]

There is a difference between knowing evil and acting on evil, and we are simply saying that since Iluvatar is the creator of the world then the idea of evil originated within him.

What is evil?

What I am saying is - and I am not trying to sound harsh or overbearing - I think you have approached this debate from the wrong perspective. Breaking down each and every one of our entries line by line and picking it apart will not do anything for you or for us.

I am not trying to pick it apart. I am trying to be clear about what I'm responding to.

As far as the Orc issue goes, I'm sorry, but blowing off the alternate theories and settling on just Elf speaks fairly clearly.

[ August 02, 2003: Message edited by: Nils ]

[Lord of Angmar]

I personally have never blown off or dismissed the theory that orcs were corrupted Men. By saying that you prefer a certain theory, as Saucepan Man did, you are not condemning other views, just 1) inviting others to debate or 2) stating your personal preference based on your knowledge.

As for myself, I am of the opinion that perhaps orcs can be either Elves or Men, and I believe that it they were Elves, their corruption would be such that Iluvatar would revoke the gift of immortality from them and purge them from their sins after they died.

[Nils]

By saying that you prefer a certain theory, as Saucepan Man did, you are not condemning other views, just 1) inviting others to debate or 2) stating your personal preference based on your knowledge.

As I said in thread on Orcs, I get frustrated when people don't recognize the fact that the Orc issue isn't quite as simple as it appears most would like to think (or do think because they haven't read anything other than the Silmarillion). Out of ignorance of the other books, I can identify with since it is only relatively recently that I was even made aware of the existance of HoME and UT for that matter. Knowing the complexity of the issue and not recognizing it diminishes the issue. Yes, it blows off the issue.

"I know the issue is there, but I don't care" attitude I call blowing off.

Am I condemning other's views? Perhaps, but that is because evidently this issue means more to me than it does to those who are so flippant about it.

[Nils]

I just finished reading the first page of the Orcish Orcish Fear thread and found that Saulotus had the same difficulty I'm having. If he didn't make any headway, I know I'm not going to. I hold Saulotus in very high regard.

Sorry about stepping on people's feet.

[Gwaihir the Windlord]

Not feeling sorry for yourself are you? I can tell you that Saulotus, who I also held in very high regard, would not have done what you have in this thread. Your apology is of course accepted, though. This quote-war that you have waged has been most irritating.

Basically what has happened is that you have jumped on every little by-point raised, magnified and exagerated it and then thrashed it, giving the raiser of the point (or, as I said, by-point) an aggreved tongue-lashing on the way. Your assumption that I believe Orcs to be corrupted Elves ('If you gave weight to what Morgoth's Ring says, you wouldn't hold the view that Orcs are Elves') is wrong. I don't know where they came from; I don't actually really hold a firm view on the subject of Orcish origin. That's the point of debate. Neither do you know where they come from, although you seem to hold yourself utterly correct and react inflamedly to everyone else's suggestions (which does not add to your own argument at all, as, something you have demonstrated, you can sort of peter out over it).

I never said you were saying he is 'only' like Melkor. From your statement "his is also like", it is pretty clear you mean that there is a component of Eru which is like Melkor.

Alright, but then why do you assume that because Melkor's mind is contained within Illuvatar's larger intellect meant that Illuvatar was evil? Anyway, I actually did mean that 'there is a component of Eru which is like Melkor'. That's exactly what I meant. However, as I said, Illuvatar goes beyond this, so that while he can see and concieve of a Melkor-like mind he is not this himself.

The accusory tones of this post are therefore misplaced.

That you said this

I am aware of the fact that I am basing my view of this on Tolkien's other writings that you don't believe hold much water.

after my assurance that I do in fact consider all of Tolkien's writings to hold 'water' shows the continuing 'thick'ness that you have denied to be in fact plain to see.

Anyway, the Lord of Angmar's summary is a fairly good one. This thread hasn't been bad, actually, despite the conflict encountered. Thanks again for it, by the way. As for Nils -- let's try and establish some sort of workable relationship now, ok? In future discussions I do not wish to repeat this.

[ August 03, 2003: Message edited by: Gwaihir the Windlord ]

[Nils]

Not feeling sorry for yourself are you?

Not at all. I had just read the thread Orcish Fear and it dawned on me that this topic was discussed long ago and the same arguments that Saul dealt with were being used again. Since I am no where near the scholar Saul is, I decided what I was attempting to do was futile.

I can tell you that Saulotus, who I also held in very high regard, would not have done what you have in this thread.

Yes I know. What I said, I said out of frustration and I am sorry. I should have followed Saul's example and said:

Believe what you will.

If it is the only theory that makes sense; then why did Tolkien reject it himself?
Why did he spend years devising a new origin?

No-one is in disagreement about the original thought concerning orcs, only that their origin evolved, and its the evolution that is erringly disregarded (yourself inclusive).

Again; believe what you will.

Your assumption that I believe Orcs to be corrupted Elves ('If you gave weight to what Morgoth's Ring says, you wouldn't hold the view that Orcs are Elves') is wrong. I don't know where they came from; I don't actually really hold a firm view on the subject of Orcish origin.

I'm sorry, I guess I got you and Saucepan-man mixed up.

Neither do you know where they come from, although you seem to hold yourself utterly correct and react inflamedly to everyone else's suggestions (which does not add to your own argument at all, as, something you have demonstrated, you can sort of peter out over it).

As I said, I should have said what Saul said long ago.

Are you done with your reprimand now?

Alright, but then why do you assume that because Melkor's mind is contained within Illuvatar's larger intellect meant that Illuvatar was evil? Anyway, I actually did mean that 'there is a component of Eru which is like Melkor'. That's exactly what I meant. However, as I said, Illuvatar goes beyond this, so that while he can see and concieve of a Melkor-like mind he is not this himself.

Ah yes, there was another issue here. If you don't mind, lets drop the Ork thing and concentrate on this issue.

The problem I have with your view is that it means that there is a component of evil within God. This does not fit with the Christian belief of God and as I said earlier, Tolkien's writing was heavily influenced by his Christian beliefs.

Give me a while and I'll post a reply with quotes. Do you consider Letters to be an authoritative source of information?

[ August 03, 2003: Message edited by: Nils ]

[Lord of Angmar]

The problem I have with your view is that it means that there is a component of evil within God. This does not fit with the Christian belief of God and as I said earlier, Tolkien's writing was heavily influenced by his Christian beliefs.

Your definition of 'component' is obviously very different from our own. You see the fact that Iluvatar can conceive of and fully understands evil as a flaw. We see it as simply a necessary reality. His mind reflects all ways of thought and every possible idea formed in the minds of his creations. Since Melkor was rebellious against Iluvatar's plans, Iluvatar therefore must understand rebellion and recognize evil within his world. This is not to say that he is evil or that he condones evil. He simply understands the workings of the mind of Melkor and all other evil beings within Ea.

Since Melkor recognized the potential for rebellion and seized the opportunity to rebel against Eru during the singing of the Themes, it can be concluded that Eru conceived of the possibility of rebellion against his will and recognized this as 'evil' before Melkor. The creation of an All-Knowing Being such as Eru cannot think of rebellion without the Creator conceiving of the idea as well.

While it is true that the Christian God does not show signs of being 'evil' (it was he, after all, who came up with the ideas for what is considered 'evil' in the Ten Commandments), it can surely be said that He could see and understand the mind of Lucifer as he descended into Darkness. He knew of evil before Adam and Eve and even before Lucifer, as is shown (and this is open to interpretation) by the Tree which God forbade Adam and Eve from eating from, which represented (in the minds of many Christian scholars) evil, or rebellion against God. God understood evil, understood Lucifer's 'fallen' state, and understood the implications of Adam and Eve eating from the tree, yet that did not make him evil in any way, did it? And since Lucifer was surrounded by Angels and by the Lord himself before his fall, his evil must have been a product of the life given unto him by God.

What I am saying is, a god can conceive of and understand evil, and evil can be a part of the mind of a god, without that god ever acting or thinking in a way that would be considered 'evil.'

[Nils]

Your definition of 'component' is obviously very different from our own. You see the fact that Iluvatar can conceive of and fully understands evil as a flaw.

But Gwaihir goes beyond saying that Iluvatar can conceive of and fully understand evil. Gwaihir has gone on to say:

Alright, but then why do you assume that because Melkor's mind is contained within Illuvatar's larger intellect meant that Illuvatar was evil?

Gwaihir says that Melkor's mind is contained within Iluvatar's mind. That is more than just knowledge of evil. That actually contains evil itself.

Do you support this position or not?

His mind reflects all ways of thought and every possible idea formed in the minds of his creations.

Yes and no. Yes God is all knowing, but each person is an individual and not a sub-component of God. You seem to be very close to the line of this issue. Although you may not be going that far, Gwahir is.

Since Melkor was rebellious against Iluvatar's plans, Iluvatar therefore must understand rebellion and recognize evil within his world. This is not to say that he is evil or that he condones evil. He simply understands the workings of the mind of Melkor and all other evil beings within Ea.

If this is all you are saying, then you and Gwahir are not on the same page. I have no problem with your understanding.

Since Melkor recognized the potential for rebellion and seized the opportunity to rebel against Eru during the singing of the Themes, it can be concluded that Eru conceived of the possibility of rebellion against his will and recognized this as 'evil' before Melkor.

If Eru created the Flame Imperishable, then yes he conceived the idea of free will. At the very least, Eru knew what he was doing when he used the Flame Imperishable.

The creation of an All-Knowing Being such as Eru cannot think of rebellion without the Creator conceiving of the idea as well.

I agree. In order to give free will, God must first understand free will. After all, that is what the ability to rebel actually is.

What I am saying is, a god can conceive of and understand evil, and evil can be a part of the mind of a god, without that god ever acting or thinking in a way that would be considered 'evil.'

I agree with you. I would use different terms to describe what you are describing, but I agree. As I said earlier, I don't believe you are describing what Gwahir is describing, as I quoted earlier in this post.

[Lord of Angmar]

It seems I have done an inadequate job of explaining myself and defending Gwaihir's viewpoint (which I think is very similar to my own on this subject).

First off, let me start with one idea that I know to be a belief of Tolkien, or at least a fact in Tolkien's book (unfortunately I cannot find The Letters of JRR Tolkien so I am unable to recite the exact text, but bear with me). Iluvatar, the Creator, has the ability to see and fully comprehend the minds of any of the beings within the world that he created. His mind encompasses all realms of thought and all conceivable viewpoints.

Gwaihir says that Melkor's mind is contained within Iluvatar's mind. That is more than just knowledge of evil. That actually contains evil itself.

The minds of all of Iluvatar's creations can be read and understood by Iluvatar Himself, so in a sense Melkor's mind is a part of Iluvatar's mind. I do not think that Gwaihir meant this to mean that in some realm of his brain Iluvatar thinks similarly to Melkor, that there is a part of his brain trying to break free, as it were, and act evilly. It is my understanding that he simply meant that Melkor's mind is reflected in Iluvatar's mind, since Iluvatar can see the minds of all others. And since Melkor was born of Iluvatar, who is the creator of all and understands all, then Melkor's mind would certainly make up a part of Iluvatar's thought.

I think that this topic would certainly qualify as an excellent topic for an essay, but I have just hastily thrown together my ideas. I hope you can understand them and glean something from them, Nils, and Gwaihir, I hope that I have not entirely misrepresented your train of thought.

[ August 03, 2003: Message edited by: Lord of Angmar ]