Ilúvatar good & evil

[Ruinel]

I've been thinking lately about Ilúvatar/Eru. Most people like to think of him as being like the modern Christian god: all good, benevolent, loving.

However, a couple of things come to mind. In the story of the creation of Eá, Eru creates the Valar. Most of them are good and one is evil. He also creates the Maiar. Again, some good, some more prone to evil. In addition, many evil beings came from Melkor (the Orcs).

Something else I thought of also, Eru takes a back seat to his creation. Only the Valar have any hand in it at all, from the trees to the war with Melkor. When Christians pray, they pray to their god, not to any sub-gods. So, in this respect, Eru is different from the modern Christian god. (This is just a side note, you may discuss this if you wish.)

I pose a question: if all things were made by Eru, then doesn't evil also come from Eru?

If this is true, then Eru is more dimensional than just the picture of the modern Christian god.

[Beor]

Actually, I always thought of the same kind of stuff, sort of along a Paradise Lost sort of line.

And, I will probably be smoten for this, but the Christian God created all things too, so didnt he create evil?

I do agree with you, and sone could probably argue that Melkor is to be pitied too, for being punished for trying to branch out

[Twista]

Im assuming the Evil came by accident, and created its self. You cant have one without the other remember....

[brownjenkins]

this part from the silmarillion makes me think along similar lines

But now Iluvatar sat and hearkened, and for a great while it seemed good to him, for in the music there were no flaws. But as the theme progressed, it came into the heart of Melkor to interweave matters of his own imagining that were not in accord with the theme of Iluvatar; for he sought therein to increase the power and glory of the part assigned to himself. To Melkor among the Ainur had been given the greatest gifts of power and knowledge, and he had a share in all the gifts of his brethren. He had gone often alone into the void places seeking the Imperishable Flame; for desire grew hot within him to bring into Being things of his own, and it seemed to him that Iluvatar took no thought for the Void, and he was impatient of its emptiness. Yet he found not the Fire, for it is with Iluvatar. But being alone he had begun to conceive thoughts of his own unlike those of his brethren.

one could say that this was evidence of melkor's evil... but reading the part i marked in bold, i wonder if by giving melkor the gifts he did, eru may have created a lesser but equal being... passing along the "ego" that eru himself obviously possessed

eru made a being that had the same desire to be the supreme power behind creation as eru had himself... so it became more of a power struggle between the two of them than "evil"

this was a struggle that melkor was doomed to lose because he did not possess the power of eru... but by the same token, a struggle melkor could not put aside because of the gifts eru had given him

you can almost feel a bit sorry for him (as it seems manwe did)

[Tuor of Gondolin]

My interpretation is different (Aside from Tolkien needing bad guys for conflict in a story).
The problem involves free will. To have effective free will one must have agents capable of choosing good or evil, and if they choose to do evil the results, to some extent, must also be allowed (if all efforts by Morgoth et. al. to dominate/destroy others were instantly negated by Eru then there would be no real free will). But in Middle-earth history you do see Eru, or the Valar, acting to eventually thwart evil agents desires, though this may take a long time (see Second Age history especially). In The Hobbit and LOTR you see this subtle working to limit the damage done by Sauron (Bilbo finding the Ring, Gandalf the White returning, etc.) I think it's clear the essential "theology" of Middle-earth is not Manichaen but rather pre-Christian Christian. There are some quotes to that effect somewhere in "Letters."

[Radagast The Brown]

Originally posted by Tuor of Gondolin
My interpretation is different (Aside from Tolkien needing bad guys for conflict in a story).
The problem involves free will. To have effective free will one must have agents capable of choosing good or evil, and if they choose to do evil the results, to some extent, must also be allowed (if all efforts by Morgoth et. al. to dominate/destroy others were instantly negated by Eru then there would be no real free will). But in Middle-earth history you do see Eru, or the Valar, acting to eventually thwart evil agents desires, though this may take a long time (see Second Age history especially). In The Hobbit and LOTR you see this subtle working to limit the damage done by Sauron (Bilbo finding the Ring, Gandalf the White returning, etc.) I think it's clear the essential "theology" of Middle-earth is not Manichaen but rather pre-Christian Christian. There are some quotes to that effect somewhere in "Letters." I agree.
I also think it was the free will of Melkor. Melkor's thoughts didn't come from Eru, in my believe, and Eru didn't make Melkor any choices. Melkor wanted to rule ME and the world the Valar the himself built from free will.

I think the 'real' god, the one you call christian (isn't he/she/it the same as jewish?) do not decided for people what they should do - the people make the choices, for good and bad. Same with Melkor, and the maiar (while the orcs are evil in their blood, I think)

[Tuor of Gondolin]

Originally posted by Radagast the Brown
I think the 'real' god, the one you call christian (isn't he/she/it the same as jewish?) do not decided for people what they should do - the people make the choices, for good and bad.
___________________________
Yes. A more inclusive phrase would be people of the Book (to include Christianity, Judaism, and Islam). But I'm not sure if eastern religious views (Buddhism, Taoism etc.) or animists (I believe there are some such beliefs still held in parts of Africa at least) would share good/evil free will views or if they have different theological worldviews.

[MasterMothra]

This is a very thought provoking post. I have contemplated both sidesfrom time to time. I know free will is the basic argument against Eru having a part in the creation of evil, but there are good arguments for his involvement also. Where good and evil are clearly defined I think there is a free will choice to do either, but in Melkors case things are a little more complicated.
When Melkor and the other Valar were created there was no evil, no tree of knowledge so to speak. So where did Melkor get these desires he is so famous for? The void could be used as an argument, but wasnt that a creation of Eru? Since the Valar could not create, without Eru's involvement, how then could Melkor conceive these evil thoughts on his own?
When the Valar came to be they were like children, they didnt know why they sang so beautifully, they just did because of the gifts they were given by their creater. the music Melkor made was different from the others. Was that bad, or was he using the gift he had been given by Eru? Aule didnt choose to like the earth and metals, nor did Ulmo decide to like water. It came naturally to both of them.
In the beginning I dont think Melkor, or any of the other Valar for that matter, had a choice of free will. They were pursuing their talents that were given to them by Eru. After some time had come to pass, I believe they chose more the path they would take in life. When it became obvious to Melkor that his actions were offensive to Eru and detrimental to the good of Middle Earth, I think Melkor made a free will choice to pursue those endeavors and therefore became responsible for the consequences of his actions.

Of course, these are simply my own observations.

[Ruinel]

MasterMortha, I agree. This is what I was thinking, also.

The Valar are each prone to some gift. Even Melkor.

And in the void, there was nothing but Eru. All things were created by him. That would mean the propensity to do good and evil, equally. It could be that Melkor, in receiving more gifts than the other Valar also obtained more propensity to do evil.


[b]Radagast the Brown[/i]: to answer your question, yes... they are the same god (Christian and Jewish).

[Artanis]

I agree with brownjemkins to some extent, I think that of the Valar, Melkor was the one most likely to 'fall', because he was the most powerful. So powerful that he wanted to "create things of his own", and believed himself capable of doing it. This he did not wish to do out of evil intentions. As I see it his 'sin' was to try to be equal to Eru, he refused to recognise his own limits (Aule did in fact make the same mistake, though he repented). But this was something he chose to do, I do not believe he was determined to become evil.

Something else I thought of also, Eru takes a back seat to his creation. Only the Valar have any hand in it at all, from the trees to the war with Melkor.Ruinel, I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you thinking of the music which the Ainur made? The themes came from Eru. Remember that the music was as fate to all things within Arda, except for Men.

[brownjenkins]

good points MasterMothra

i have a hard time thinking anyone would create evil... and if that was the intention, why not do it more directly?

i don't really buy the "you must have evil to have good argument" either... maybe one of the things eru gave to melkor was his own pride and drive to be the controlling force

i wonder if eru could have gone about things in a different and more open way... this may have changed the way things turned out... in the "music", the ainur are very much his instruments, or at best, performers in a piece he directed... and rightly so, some might say

that said, he may have been better served by letting melkor and the others into his plans... allowing them to contribute in a more active way and thus satisfy the desire he placed within his children to achieve the greatness of their parent with a certain degree of independence

eru may have made melkor a little too much like himself

[Artanis]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
i have a hard time thinking anyone would create evil... I tend to see good and evil as potentials that simply exist within all, rather than being created by some 'superbeing'. I would say Eru had the potential of performing both good and evil actions, and so had all the Ainur. Melkor's desire was not evil in itself, but he chose to follow his desire, and this choice led to evil results.
that said, he may have been better served by letting melkor and the others into his plans... allowing them to contribute in a more active way and thus satisfy the desire he placed within his children to achieve the greatness of their parent with a certain degree of independenceI think very few, if any, of the Ainur possessed enough knowledge to contribute more actively than they did. Not even Melkor and Manwë would have accomplished much imo. Maybe Ulmo, who was most skilled of them all in music. And if Melkor had been given the chance of participating more actively, would he then have been satisfied, or would he lust for even more power? Who knows?

[Fat middle]

I do think that some aspects of the "modern Christian God" (I don't know why do you say "modern", Ruinel:confused:) of the God of the Book can be clearly seen in Eru. I think that when Tolkien was writting the Ainulindale he wanted to avoid any particular refference to christianism (= christian religion), but he borrowed some elements of a "christian phillosophy", specially the Aquinas' phillosophical explanation of God (his "natural theology"). Reading the Letters one can see that Tolkien knew very well the Aquinas phillosophy.

For Thomas Aquinas, the phillosophical view of God was the absolute of being, the perfect being, the plenitud of being. Good (like Truth, Beauty and others) is an aspect of being (IOW, being seen from a certain point of view). Therefore, God is the perfect goodness, the plenitude of goodness, where no evil can be found. He cannot do any evil, but that's just the opposite of a limitation.

In the Creation, God creates limited beings from nothing. Those beings are different from him. Those beings are not perfect, but some of them are able to grow in perfection. How? using their free will to adequate their being to the role that the Perfect Being designed for them.

So, the valar were limited beings with free will. They "participated" (another Aquinas' concept) in different ways of Eru's plenitude. This may be what means "Manwë was the brother of Melkor in the mind of Ilúvatar". Some are nearer to the plenitude than others.

While playing the music that Eru had designed, they chose (free will) to play their appointed role or not. Some of them are more or less conscious of their own disagreement (Melkor) and some not.

Conscious disagreement leads to moral evil. Unconscious disagreement (the Valar summoning the elves, perhaps) leads only to "phisical" evil.

Okay. Let's stop now. That's dense enough and probably wrong enough :p

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
good points MasterMothra

i have a hard time thinking anyone would create evil... and if that was the intention, why not do it more directly?

i don't really buy the "you must have evil to have good argument" either... maybe one of the things eru gave to melkor was his own pride and drive to be the controlling force...

...eru may have made melkor a little too much like himself I don't think that you must have evil to have good, but you can not define one without the other. You can not know what good is without evil.

I think you are right, that Eru made Melkor too much like himself, gave him more gifts than the other Valar. Yet, he doesn't have the same level of power to match Eru (not even close). He has just enough to realize he is more powerful than the other Valar, but too little to realize his own ambition (which I think came with the gifts that Eru gave him). It soured him and turned him against what was right, and made him who he was. Well, that's my opinion anyway.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Fat middle
I do think that some aspects of the "modern Christian God" (I don't know why do you say "modern", Ruinel:confused: ) of the God of the Book can be clearly seen in Eru. I think that when Tolkien was writting the Ainulindale he wanted to avoid any particular refference to christianism (= christian religion), but he borrowed some elements of a "christian phillosophy", specially the Aquinas' phillosophical explanation of God (his "natural theology"). Reading the Letters one can see that Tolkien knew very well the Aquinas phillosophy.
I said "modern" because looking at old writings, the Christian god was not always thought of as kind and loving, but vengeful and wrathful if you didn't follow his will.

What I was saying is that some believe that Tolkien patterned Eru after the modern Christian god. I wasn't saying that he actually did.

I suppose if you were making a god, there would be certain qualities that you'd want him/her to have. Loving, benevolent and creative... all positive qualities. As for vengeful and wrathful, that could be used to keep the 'flock' in line and to remind the 'flock' that their enemies will suffer should they be attacked (making them feel safer in a more or less harsh world), so also useful qualities as well.

Eru didn't have the latter qualities. Upon reading The Sil, I got the impression that Eru started his creation and handed it over to the Valar to finish up (do the details, I suppose). He never takes an active roll in protecting the Children or Middle Earth. He leaves it to finish out, like watching a marble roll down a bumpy hill... rolling here, being diverted, then rolling there.

[Tuor of Gondolin]

Originally posted by Ruinel
Eru didn't have the latter qualities. Upon reading The Sil, I got the impression that Eru started his creation and handed it over to the Valar to finish up (do the details, I suppose). He never takes an active roll in protecting the Children or Middle Earth. He leaves it to finish out, like watching a marble roll down a bumpy hill... rolling here, being diverted, then rolling there.
____________________________
I think that's going too far, though it was Tolikien's general idea to have Iluvatar become not as "hands on" as in early Ea.
There are clear hints of Iluvatar (not the Valar) intervening in the time of the War of the Ring (Bilbo's finding the Ring and especially the return of Gandalf).

From "Letters" #181
"There is no embodiment of the One, of God, who indeed remains remote, outside the World, and only directly accessible to the Valar or Rulers.....But the One retains all ultimate authority, and (or so it seems as viewed in serial time (a possible definition of a 'miracle').".....the situation became so much the worse by the fall of Saruman, that the 'good' were obliged to greater effort and sacrifice. Thus Gandalf faced and suffered death; and came back or was sent back, as he says, with enhanced power."

And "Letters" #183
"In The Lord of the Rings the conflict is not basically about 'freedom', though that is naturally involved. It is about God, and His sole right to divine honour. The Elder and the Numenoreans believed in The One, the true God, and held worship of any other person an abomination, Sauron desired to be a God-King, and was held to be this by his servants. If he had been victorious he would have demanded divine honour from all rational creatures and absolut tempral power over the whole world."

And in "Letters" # 156 (to Robert Murray, S.J.)
"I have purposely kept all allusions to the highest matters down to mere hints, perceptible only by the most attentive, or kept them under unexplained symbolic forms. So God and the 'angelic' gods, the Lords or Powers of the West, only peep through in such places as Gandalf's conversation with Frodo: 'behind that there was something else at work, beyond any design of the Ring-maker's'; or in Faramir's Numenorean grace at dinner."

[Sister Golden Hair]

This made me think of the discussion between Finrod and Andreth in the Athrabeth. Perhaps the Valar were made to do what Eru could not, because of who he was and where he was. Does not Andreth and Finrod discuss this point, saying that Eru is outside and cannot enter in without destroying the world? Something like that. Finrod states something like comparing it to a picture or a story, where the author/artist is a already in it, and outside of it. I wish I had MR handy right now, I would find the quote. Maybe someone could put it up, or maybe I'll find it later and put it up to clarify my point. Anyway, what I am saying based on Finrod and Andreth's discussion, is that perhaps the Ainur were needed to complete the creation because Eru was unable to wholely enter into it 100%.

Am I making sense here. This is a deep subject.:)

[Valandil]

My guess is just that Tolkien sort of wanted 'the best of both worlds'... he was creating a 'mythology' - and probably wanted to have the various 'gods' of other mythologies; Greek, Norse, etc. YET, as a devout Christian himself, he wanted to have a 'God' who was truly the ultimate Creator. So we have Eru in the role of 'God' and the Valar as mythological 'gods' or arch-angels, or whatever.

As far as evil - and whether or not Eru created evil by creating Melkor - I would say, as others have a bit, that Tolkien was following principles of Judeo-Christian thought, wherein the Creator made other beings whom He granted 'free will' - and that they were even given lattitude within that 'free will' to do what was wrong, if they so chose.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

my view was that it was melkor's power that led to his fall:
that saying comes to mind;
power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely

i also feel that eru did not create good or evil specifically, just that when he created anything, they just came into being naturally
i.e: good was created, therefore evil came naturally as a complement

[Ruinel]

The Valar were created by Eru. Before they were created, there was only Eru. Since Melkor's desires caused him to do evil, then is it safe to say that there was "evolution" going on? What I'm saying is, that if Eru didn't create (or bring with him) Evil, then Evil must have evolved from what he originally created. Same with Good.

Perhaps it was like a single species of bird, that was somehow seperated over eons and as the two environments change, so do the characteristics which enable the birds to survive in two environments, through natural selection.

So, perhaps Eru enstilled the same propensities as he had, and that was, Goodness. And when Melkor was created by Eru, he was instilled with more Gifts. As Melkor realized his Gifts were different, ambition evolved in him, and so did the propensity to do Evil.

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by Valandil
As far as evil - and whether or not Eru created evil by creating Melkor - I would say, as others have a bit, that Tolkien was following principles of Judeo-Christian thought, wherein the Creator made other beings whom He granted 'free will' - and that they were even given lattitude within that 'free will' to do what was wrong, if they so chose.

interesting... however, does eru (like a father) have any responsibility for how his child (melkor) exercises that "free will"?

is upbringing, or possibly the lack of, a factor at all?

[Valandil]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
interesting... however, does eru (like a father) have any responsibility for how his child (melkor) exercises that "free will"?

is upbringing, or possibly the lack of, a factor at all?

If you want to use the 'father' analogy, I'd say that as fathers, we try our best to teach our children to make right choices. At some point though, we let them go... and the choices they make are their own. Perhaps much of what we teach them will stay with them, but that depends on how receptive they were (or decided to be) to what we taught. The ownership of their choices is on them.

In the specific case of Eru and Melkor, I would suggest that Melkor had the capacity to make right choices, but persistently did otherwise.

In one of the other threads (GM forum) I mention the 'Christian' viewpoint of evil as NOT being OPPOSITE of good, but a deviation from good - or an 'incomplete' good, however slight. This is pertintent to our discussion not because I am a Christian, but because JRRT was... and seems to have carried over many Christian principles into his Middle-earth mythology and stories.

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by Valandil
If you want to use the 'father' analogy, I'd say that as fathers, we try our best to teach our children to make right choices. At some point though, we let them go... and the choices they make are their own. Perhaps much of what we teach them will stay with them, but that depends on how receptive they were (or decided to be) to what we taught. The ownership of their choices is on them.

In the specific case of Eru and Melkor, I would suggest that Melkor had the capacity to make right choices, but persistently did otherwise.

i would agree... it just seems to me, unless there is a lot we are not told about, that melkor was given very little if anything in the way of teaching... even after his actions during the music... in fact, eru even said that it was all part of the greater plan

And thou, Melkor, wilt discover all the secret thoughts of thy mind, and wilt perceive that they are but a part of the whole and tributary to its glory.

there are parents who say "do this because i say so" and parents who do their best to explain their reasoning... eru could be seen as somewhat of the former... in which case he would bear some of the responsibility for how things turned out

a third option would be that eru is somewhat neutral and just created and then waited to see what would happen... if this is the case, there is really no blame to be laid... things just are what they are

[Tuor of Gondolin]

Originally posted by Valandil In one of the other threads (GM forum) I mention the 'Christian' viewpoint of evil as NOT being OPPOSITE of good, but a deviation from good - or an 'incomplete' good, however slight. This is pertintent to our discussion not because I am a Christian, but because JRRT was... and seems to have carried over many Christian principles into his Middle-earth mythology and stories.
_________________________

Yes, Tolkien shared C.S. Lewis's view of evil (see "The Great Divorce").
From "Letters" #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. 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. He had gone the way of all tyrants: beginning
well, at least on the level that while desiring to order all things
according to his own wisdom he still at first considered the
(economic) well-being of the other inhabitants of the Earth. But he went further than human tyrants in pride and the lust for domination, being in origin an immortal (angelic) spirit."

[Valandil]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
i would agree... it just seems to me, unless there is a lot we are not told about, that melkor was given very little if anything in the way of teaching... even after his actions during the music... in fact, eru even said that it was all part of the greater plan

there are parents who say "do this because i say so" and parents who do their best to explain their reasoning... eru could be seen as somewhat of the former... in which case he would bear some of the responsibility for how things turned out

a third option would be that eru is somewhat neutral and just created and then waited to see what would happen... if this is the case, there is really no blame to be laid... things just are what they are

Tuor's post, between yours and this, also sheds light on the subject in the same regard. But think of it this way... Melkor's first choice was to either join in the music of the Ainar or to sing his own tune - and he chose the latter. Seems a rather innocuous thing, doesn't it? The family is singing 'Happy Birthday' and one of the children sings 'Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star' - and we all laugh. Melkor's first 'straying' was just a small thing - but it was straying nonetheless, and led to further, farther, wider straying.

I believe Eru is modeled very much on the 'Christian' concept of God. I think he WAS conceived to be all-good and all-powerful. He even wove Melkor's 'strayings' back into his theme - as we Christians believe that God can take what is evil, or meant for evil, and work it into His Good Will.

[brownjenkins]

i think you are probably correct on JRRTs intentions... though i would prefer to think that all-good and all-powerful creator would have forseen melkor's reaction to some extent and done a bit more to help lead him down the correct path in the first place... though i am also assuming that this creator is "all-knowing", and maybe he is not

eru's actions are left largely, if not completely, unexplained to his children... and if you choose to create beings with free will, i think you must expect some of them to react negatively to what could easily be seen by them as a restriction upon this free will you have given them... not so much out of "evil", but out of fear of the unknown

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
i would agree... it just seems to me, unless there is a lot we are not told about, that melkor was given very little if anything in the way of teaching... even after his actions during the music... in fact, eru even said that it was all part of the greater plan...
That's the impression I also got from reading. The Valar were simply, made... as they were... with everything they were and the Gifts they were given from Eru. Anything that might have developed seemed to stem from how Eru made them.

...a third option would be that eru is somewhat neutral and just created and then waited to see what would happen... if this is the case, there is really no blame to be laid... things just are what they are True, I thought this also when reading it, that Eru starts the ball in action... then watches the courses of action unfold, as it were.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Valandil
...I believe Eru is modeled very much on the 'Christian' concept of God. I think he WAS conceived to be all-good and all-powerful. He even wove Melkor's 'strayings' back into his theme - as we Christians believe that God can take what is evil, or meant for evil, and work it into His Good Will.
I don't think so (regarding Judeo-Christian god taking evil and working it into good will). In the Judeo-Christian mythology, the angel who is most like Melkor (Satan) is cast from heaven and given his own, separate and distinct place to rule. Supposedly, there is always a struggle between Satan and the Judeo-Christan god for the souls of mortals, and that fight does not end until the end of time. This mythology differs from JRRT's mythology in that Melkor is allowed to inhabit ME, taking on a physical form and interacting (ie, battling) with the Children who reside there. It is the other Valar (ie, angel-gods) who act against him and battle him. In the Judeo-Christian mythology, however, Satan is cast down by the one god.

With this in mind, I think JRRT incorporated a few, but not all of the characteristics from the Judeo-Christan mythology, but expanded upon them. Therefore, if Eru existed in the void where only he existed, it is possible that when the Valar were created the propensity to do Evil could have come from Eru himself.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Ruinel
I don't think so (regarding Judeo-Christian god taking evil and working it into good will). In the Judeo-Christian mythology, the angel who is most like Melkor (Satan) is cast from heaven and given his own, separate and distinct place to rule. Supposedly, there is always a struggle between Satan and the Judeo-Christan god for the souls of mortals, and that fight does not end until the end of time. This mythology differs from JRRT's mythology in that Melkor is allowed to inhabit ME, taking on a physical form and interacting (ie, battling) with the Children who reside there. It is the other Valar (ie, angel-gods) who act against him and battle him. In the Judeo-Christian mythology, however, Satan is cast down by the one god.

With this in mind, I think JRRT incorporated a few, but not all of the characteristics from the Judeo-Christan mythology, but expanded upon them. Therefore, if Eru existed in the void where only he existed, it is possible that when the Valar were created the propensity to do Evil could have come from Eru himself.

Ah - a common misconception about the Christian understanding of God... either that or your response in the first paragraph misses part of what I was saying. To expound a bit on the Christian view of God:

God DOES work evil into good. I was intending to say that God works things toward His Will... I added the word 'Good' to describe 'His Will'... not to be using the term 'good will' - so sorry if I was unclear. The Bible tells us that God works evil into good. Why - even the crucifiction... Satan was quite certainly at work in those who opposed Jesus and sought His destruction... but, know what? God worked all that into His Plan of salvation for mankind!

God is not really in a struggle for souls with Satan. Satan has led mankind astray, and God has reached back out to mankind anyway... giving us the choice to return to Him. Talk of a struggle between the two is off the mark... we don't view them as equal opponents or God as being two or three or even ten times as powerful as Satan... God is infinitely more powerful than Satan! In His Forebearance, God withholds His Hand, so that mankind may be saved.

A bit inconclusive about whether God cast Satan from Heaven. Some passages indicate that possibility, but they don't exactly spell it out - and some make other conclusions from the texts.

Yes, Melkor is quite representative of Satan - or at least similar to him - more than he is similar to any 'mythological' dieties. However, God HAS allowed Satan to inhabit the earth and Satan WAS allowed to take on physical form (remember the serpent in the Garden of Eden?).

I agree with some of the rest of what you say... that JRRT didn't EXACTLY parallel Eru and the way he works with his creation to God and the way He works with His Creation. However, he did seem to largely base Eru on God. I disagree that Eru 'planted' evil in those he created. Similar to how we Christians believe about things, I think being given the capacity for choice allows one to choose to do wrong... it doesn't in itself create the wrong which can be chosen. Because remember that in our view, wrong is not necessarily 'opposite' of right... it can be merely a slight deviation from right. Moral responsibility for the choice is on the chooser, not the creator - in either realm! :)

And I don't buy that Eru was a 'bad parent' either! :p Remember that any analogy breaks down at some point - and this may be the point where the 'parent analogy' breaks down. And... if Melkor ALSO had the capacity to chose to obey - again, is HE not the one responsible for choosing NOT to obey?

[Fat middle]

Originally posted by Ruinel
In the Judeo-Christian mythology, however, Satan is cast down by the one god.
I believe you're wrong there. At least, in the catholic tradition, it is popularly believed that Satan fought with St. Michael Archangel (?), and it was him who cast down Satan.

I don't know what's the textual basis for this in the Book, but at least I've read a passage (I think it's from Isiah) where St. Michael laments about the falling of Lucifer (=Satan) who had been the brightest between the servants of God.

That passage made me think that they were probably very close "friends", just as Manwe and Melkor were brothers in the mind of Eru. I think that biblical conception also passed to the Ainulindale.

I'll try to research some text for this.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Fat Middle, that reminds me of Paradise Lost by John Milton which was an awesome read.:)

[Fat middle]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
Fat Middle, that reminds me of Paradise Lost by John Milton which was an awesome read.:)
Yep, that's an awesome work :)

I've found the text I was referring to, but is seems I was wrong about St. Michael, there is no referrence to him in the text (I think it was just me that thought in him while reading that). In fact there is direct referrence to de devil either, but being a prophecy it has been traditionally understood so.

(Isaiah 14:12-14)
"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: . . . I will be like the most High."

As in most prophetical texts of the Bible, there is a historical meaning (Lucifer = the King of Babylon) but there can be also another meanings.

Anyway, when I read that the image in my mind is Manwe speaking about Melkor :)

[Fat middle]

I've found another reference to this in Ezekiel. Here the prophet is speaking about the King of Tyre, but it is traditionally understood as to Lucifer:
" 'You were the model of perfection,
full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
13 You were in Eden,
the garden of God;
every precious stone adorned you:
ruby, topaz and emerald,
chrysolite, onyx and jasper,
sapphire, turquoise and beryl.
Your settings and mountings were made of gold;
on the day you were created they were prepared.
14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub,
for so I ordained you.
You were on the holy mount of God;
you walked among the fiery stones.
15 You were blameless in your ways
from the day you were created
till wickedness was found in you.
16 Through your widespread trade
you were filled with violence,
and you sinned.
So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God,
and I expelled you, O guardian cherub,
from among the fiery stones.
The footnote says: The precise identification of some of these precious stones is uncertain.

Hehe :), but of course we know that beryl is a pale-green elf-stone ;):D

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by Valandil
And I don't buy that Eru was a 'bad parent' either! :p Remember that any analogy breaks down at some point - and this may be the point where the 'parent analogy' breaks down. And... if Melkor ALSO had the capacity to chose to obey - again, is HE not the one responsible for choosing NOT to obey?

so you don't think the eru had any responsibility to try to lead his children down the right path?

i understand the free choice argument from a christian perspective... but i don't understand how you could hold someone responsible for a choice if you don't first explain right and wrong, along the the reasoning behind it

i don't necessarily see eru as a bad parent... in fact, i see him involved so little i would almost say he is not a parent at all... more of a neutral observer unless absolutely necessary

[Valandil]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
so you don't think the eru had any responsibility to try to lead his children down the right path?

i understand the free choice argument from a christian perspective... but i don't understand how you could hold someone responsible for a choice if you don't first explain right and wrong, along the the reasoning behind it

i don't necessarily see eru as a bad parent... in fact, i see him involved so little i would almost say he is not a parent at all... more of a neutral observer unless absolutely necessary

But what about Melkor? Would you say he was more like a 'child' or more like an 'adult' at the time he began to stray? This is an angelic being... I don't believe his thinking was child-like. I think he's fully accountable for his choice - and was created to be so. :)

[Ruinel]

The Valar were made by Eru already fully formed in who they would be. Melkor would not be considered a child, IMO.

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by Valandil
But what about Melkor? Would you say he was more like a 'child' or more like an 'adult' at the time he began to stray? This is an angelic being... I don't believe his thinking was child-like. I think he's fully accountable for his choice - and was created to be so. :)

more of a "child" in terms of experience... much like the genesis story, where i've always assumed adam and eve were created as adults... but were far from it in terms of real-world experience... after all, they were just created

how could they be expected to fully realize the implications of any course of action they might take? we learn by what we are taught and by experience... i see no "teaching" on the part of eru... and in fact, he doesn't seem to even really reprimand melkor for his actions... which leads me back to the idea that eru wished to remain more of an outsider to his creation and just see what happened

[Rían]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
so you don't think the eru had any responsibility to try to lead his children down the right path?

i understand the free choice argument from a christian perspective... but i don't understand how you could hold someone responsible for a choice if you don't first explain right and wrong, along the the reasoning behind it

i don't necessarily see eru as a bad parent... in fact, i see him involved so little i would almost say he is not a parent at all... more of a neutral observer unless absolutely necessary
I hope to jump into this discussion more next week - but just a few quick notes:

Re Iluvatar and the Christian God - IIRC, JRRT says in Letters that they're one and the same (ref. coming up)

Re responsibility : I think it would have been pretty lousy of God to create beings with free choice (and thus the possibility of willfully choosing wrong) w/o taking responsibility - but He DID indeed take responsibility. Any guesses/opinions how?

Re rebuking Melkor - Eru did do this, IIRC (ref. coming up)


EDIT - changed some wording, was v. terse due to lack of time...

[Ruinel]

Rian, you are so terse. :D

There are differences between Eru and the Christian god. Even if JRRT says in Letters that they are one in the same, he has definitely chosen to create a new character different from the Christian god. Though I do see similarities, I do not see a cloned character.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by Ruinel
Rian, you are so terse. :D

There are differences between Eru and the Christian god. Even if JRRT says in Letters that they are one in the same, he has definitely chosen to create a new character different from the Christian god. Though I do see similarities, I do not see a cloned character. I have to agree with this. Also, another difference is that Heaven and Hell seem to be on earth and nowhere else, although the Timeles halls and the void were beyond Arda. Since Tolkien made God, the Valar, and the Children, to be able to interact together and aside from Eru, they all dwelt in Arda, it makes it different from the Christian version. The only similarities I see, is that there is a god, a devil of sorts, devine beings, and good and evil.

[brownjenkins]

good point sgh... i remember from reading lost tales that jrrt originally had a more segmented version of the afterlife... with the evil going to melkor, the good spirits (even of men) brought back in valinor, and the rest ending up in a kind of limbo

later accounts seemed to have dropped this entirely... one would have to assume that all the spirits of elves and men ended up in the same place, irregardless of how they lived their life

eru, who only very rarely interfered in the course of arda, seems to have never been interested in passing any kind of judgement one way or another in the way that the christian god does

[Rían]

Originally posted by Ruinel
Rian, you are so terse. :D

There are differences between Eru and the Christian god. Even if JRRT says in Letters that they are one in the same, he has definitely chosen to create a new character different from the Christian god. Though I do see similarities, I do not see a cloned character.
No, I don't see a "cloned character" either ... what I meant is that one can think about this difficult and interesting question in light of the characteristics of the Christian God - IOW, those characterisics will shed light on the issue. I think there's a lot of insight that can be gained on this issue that way. It is indeed an interesting and relevant question.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
I have to agree with this. Also, another difference is that Heaven and Hell seem to be on earth and nowhere else, although the Timeles halls and the void were beyond Arda. Since Tolkien made God, the Valar, and the Children, to be able to interact together and aside from Eru, they all dwelt in Arda, it makes it different from the Christian version. The only similarities I see, is that there is a god, a devil of sorts, devine beings, and good and evil. It's funny, I never really thought of Melkor as a "devil"... only a Vala that was full of spite for having the reigns held back on him, so to speak. :p

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
good point sgh... i remember from reading lost tales that jrrt originally had a more segmented version of the afterlife... with the evil going to melkor, the good spirits (even of men) brought back in valinor, and the rest ending up in a kind of limboWhich would follow the Catholic tradition, if Melkor was to be Satan.

later accounts seemed to have dropped this entirely... one would have to assume that all the spirits of elves and men ended up in the same place, irregardless of how they lived their lifeRight, with some "healing" in Mandos longer than others for their corruption.

eru, who only very rarely interfered in the course of arda, seems to have never been interested in passing any kind of judgement one way or another in the way that the christian god does This is what I see also. More or less, as he waited to see what would happen next. But indifferent to the fate of the individual, or the group. After all, he could create a new world if necessary. :p

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by Ruinel
It's funny, I never really thought of Melkor as a "devil"... only a Vala that was full of spite for having the reigns held back on him, so to speak. :p Which is why I said 'a devil of sorts.' It isn't so much that he is the devil, but he is in Tolkien's world as close as it gets to that. So I would say this is the role he was cast into, if we compare the story on a Christian parallel. In Tolkien's world, Melkor is the ultimate evil.

[Rían]

I finally have a bit of time to post here - I've been thinking about the posts, but haven't had time to put my thoughts down until now. From Ruinel's opening post:

Originally posted by Ruinel
[B]However, a couple of things come to mind. In the story of the creation of Eá, Eru creates the Valar. Most of them are good and one is evil. He also creates the Maiar. Again, some good, some more prone to evil. In addition, many evil beings came from Melkor (the Orcs). This may have been posted already, but Melkor wasn't evil at first ... IOW, he wasn't "made" evil.

I'm glad Tolkien put in the story of Aule and his rebellion, and how Aule's heart reacted so differently than Melkor's. Iluvatar said to Aule: "Why hast thou done this? Why dost thou attempt a thing which thou knowest is beyond thy power and thy authority? ..." (which is the classic response of the Christian God to sin - bringing up the wrong action for discussion in hope that the person will repent - like in the Garden of Eden, where God says "where are you?" when Adam and Eve hid themselves after their sin. It's not like God couldn't find them! It's like when I see my younger ones doing something wrong, and I can just say their name in a questioning way, and see which way they start to deal with it - either denial or acknowledgement ...)

Then when Aule is done making the Dwarves and was instructing them in speech, Iluvatar spoke to him, and Aule was silent - a pretty good indicator that he knew he did something wrong. Then in answer to Iluvatar's questions above, Aule does NOT deny what was said, and even acknowledges error : "And in my impatience I have fallen into folly". A big difference from Melkor's response.

Aule also goes on to say : "Yet the making of things is in my heart from my own making by thee; and the child of little understanding that makes a play of the deeds of his father may do so without thought of mockery, but because he is the son of his father." I love this - total honesty with Iluvatar, with an underlying heart of honest questioning - this is so different from Melkor's defiant actions in answer to Iluvatar. Aule chooses to resume his position of a created being under the rightful and loving authority of Iluvatar, while Melkor continues to try to make himself equal to Iluvatar - a vain task, and a terribly wrong one.

I see people say that both Satan and Melkor really didn't do anything wrong, they were just trying to express themselves. Yet if this is so, then why was Melkor "filled with shame" at Iluvatar's rebuke? To me, their error seems the same - they wanted to BE God - and wanting to be something that is against your very created being is wrong - a crime against nature, I guess, is one thing it could be called. This is one of the areas where the fact that there is NO complete analogy to the relationship between God and humans is unfortunate - comparing it to a parent and child is good for many purposes, but it breaks down in the end in that the child will grow up and become, RIGHTFULLY, a peer to the parent. Yet a human will never be a peer to God - and there is nothing wrong with this; in fact, it is our glory and our joy and our freedom.

Just some opening musings ... :)

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
I see people say that both Satan and Melkor really didn't do anything wrong, they were just trying to express themselves. Yet if this is so, then why was Melkor "filled with shame" at Iluvatar's rebuke? To me, their error seems the same - they wanted to BE God - and wanting to be something that is against your very created being is wrong - a crime against nature, I guess, is one thing it could be called. This is one of the areas where the fact that there is NO complete analogy to the relationship between God and humans is unfortunate - comparing it to a parent and child is good for many purposes, but it breaks down in the end in that the child will grow up and become, RIGHTFULLY, a peer to the parent. Yet a human will never be a peer to God - and there is nothing wrong with this; in fact, it is our glory and our joy and our freedom.

i don't quite agree, though i think you reflect tolkien's sentiments... in my mind, the greatest possible creation is one that meets or exceeds the creator... and the very fact that a creation can be given free will, yet must always accept a lesser position to the creator, is the source of the self-doubt, shame and ultimately, the evil

[Rían]

But if the creator has created everything in existence, how can a creation "out-do" that? If the creator has existed before the creation, how can the creation "out-do" that? It's not a matter of the creator trying to repress the creation, it's a simple matter of fact. And the creations are fully glorious in their own right. I don't see it as having to "accept a lesser position". The position of creator is not up for grabs on a cosmic "Job Openings" bulletin board :D, nor can it ever be, by the very nature of things. It is no shame to be a step below God.

Also, if we were all competing for God's position, I think THAT would be the source of "self-doubt, shame and ultimately, the evil". That's pretty much what most people do here in the world, anyway :( (compete for God's position, or compete to be better than others) whereas God tells us that we are inherently of great worth.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Ruinel
Something else I thought of also, Eru takes a back seat to his creation. Only the Valar have any hand in it at all, from the trees to the war with Melkor. When Christians pray, they pray to their god, not to any sub-gods. So, in this respect, Eru is different from the modern Christian god. (This is just a side note, you may discuss this if you wish.) Yet in Christianity, we see the angels at war against evil.

I think the calling to Elbereth and things like that reflect Tolkien's Catholic background and the intercession of the saints. And what we do read about Eru shows a clear understanding of how He is set apart above the Ainur.

And re "back seat" - can't find the quote now, but someone else mentioned it too - that it's a "pre-Christian" world. We see Eru "working" through the knowledge that people have in their hearts of what is good and evil, I suppose, just like in the time before Abraham. Only starting in Abraham's time, which is quite a few years after the LOTR timeframe, do we see God directly jumping in.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Beor
I do agree with you, and sone could probably argue that Melkor is to be pitied too, for being punished for trying to branch out I don't think Melkor was innocently trying to "branch out", do you?

[Rían]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
one could say that this was evidence of melkor's evil... but reading the part i marked in bold, i wonder if by giving melkor the gifts he did, eru may have created a lesser but equal being... passing along the "ego" that eru himself obviously possessed But it's not "ego" to realize that you created the universe, it's a simple acknowledgement of fact.

eru made a being that had the same desire to be the supreme power behind creation as eru had himself... so it became more of a power struggle between the two of them than "evil" I see what you're saying, but don't agree - I really see it as more as a denial of truth on Melkor's part - it's just the simple truth that Eru and Eru alone has the Flame Imperishable and created Ea and is the supreme being by right. The Flame Imperishable is part of the very nature of Eru - it's not like Eru stumbled across it one day, and might lose it to Melkor if he's not careful.

this was a struggle that melkor was doomed to lose because he did not possess the power of eru... but by the same token, a struggle melkor could not put aside because of the gifts eru had given him I think Melkor COULD have put it aside, like Aule did. And Eru gave Melkor chances to do this - and Melkor's own continuing choices eventually put him beyond the chances. :(

you can almost feel a bit sorry for him (as it seems manwe did) And I imagine Eru was the most grieved of all to see this lovely being turn, by choice, to corruption :(

[Rían]

Originally posted by Tuor of Gondolin
My interpretation is different (Aside from Tolkien needing bad guys for conflict in a story).
The problem involves free will. To have effective free will one must have agents capable of choosing good or evil, and if they choose to do evil the results, to some extent, must also be allowed (if all efforts by Morgoth et. al. to dominate/destroy others were instantly negated by Eru then there would be no real free will). But in Middle-earth history you do see Eru, or the Valar, acting to eventually thwart evil agents desires, though this may take a long time (see Second Age history especially). In The Hobbit and LOTR you see this subtle working to limit the damage done by Sauron (Bilbo finding the Ring, Gandalf the White returning, etc.) I think it's clear the essential "theology" of Middle-earth is not Manichaen but rather pre-Christian Christian. There are some quotes to that effect somewhere in "Letters." Ah, here's the reference to "pre-Christian" - I agree with you, Tuor, that in order to have free will, the resulting evil must be allowed, to a controlled extent, and that Eru, or the Valar acting under him, eventually act. I like your point of "subtle working to limit the damage" and those examples (Bilbo finding the ring, Gandalf, etc.)

[Rían]

Originally posted by Ruinel
It could be that Melkor, in receiving more gifts than the other Valar also obtained more propensity to do evil. I would say "capacity" to do evil, not "propensity", because propensity indicates an inclination. Would you go with that, or do you still prefer propensity?

Any being with free will has the "capacity" to do either good or evil, by the very definition of free will.

I don't think there was inclination involved; or if there was, the inclination was naturally towards good (defined as the will of Iluvatar, which is good), and it was actually a bit of "work" on Melkor's part to overcome the propensity towards good and to choose to do evil.

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
I think Melkor COULD have put it aside, like Aule did. And Eru gave Melkor chances to do this - and Melkor's own continuing choices eventually put him beyond the chances. :(

And I imagine Eru was the most grieved of all to see this lovely being turn, by choice, to corruption :(

i don't remember any examples of eru giving melkor any particular instruction of even hints at what might be right and what might be wrong... just anger at his variations during the music

does the biblical genesis story have god give a reason to adam on why he should not eat the apple... or is it just understood that since it is the word of god it should be obeyed?

[Rían]

by brownie
i don't remember any examples of eru giving melkor any particular instruction of even hints at what might be right and what might be wrong... just anger at his variations during the music
I think the instructions would be the parts I've bolded in this section: third paragraph, Ainulindale
Then Iluvatar said to them: 'Of the theme that I have declared to you, I will now that ye make in harmony together a Great Music. And since I have kindled you with the Flame Imperishable, ye shall show forth your powers in adorning this theme, each with his own thoughts and devices, if he will. But I will sit and hearken, and be glad that through you great beauty has been wakened into song.'

And then, further down, "it came into the heart of Melkor to interweave matters of his own imagining that were not in accord with the theme of Iluvatar, for he sought therein to increase the power and glory of the part assigned to himself." And the result of this? "discord arose about him, and many that sang nigh him grew despondent, and their thought was disturbed and their music faltered..." and some began to go along with Melkor, and "the melodies which had been heard before foudnered in a sea of turbulent sound .... a raging storm, as of dark waters that made war one upon another in an endless wrath that would not be assuaged."

You know the tree by its fruits, as the proverb says.

And then in Iluvatar's first (recorded) verbal rebuke of Melkor, he does NOT banish or annihilate Melkor, but instead states the truth - that Melkor is mightiest among the Ainur, but that Iluvatar is above all. Just like in Aule's case. But Melkor was filled with shame, similar to Aule, but where Aule turned to Iluvatar, Melkor turned away with "secret anger". BIG difference in the reaction. Then Iluvatar speaks with the Ainur at great length, and I think it's pretty safe to assume that he attempted reconciliation with Melkor again. I think the very fact that Iluvatar didn't just annihilate Melkor at this point shows that Iluvatar hoped for his redemption. Also that later on, Manwe hoped for his redemption, and Manwe was closest to the heart of Iluvatar, IIRC.

[Rían]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
does the biblical genesis story have god give a reason to adam on why he should not eat the apple... or is it just understood that since it is the word of god it should be obeyed? Yes, the reason was "for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die." :( And indeed, death entered into mankind as a result of Adam's choice (which Adam knew to be wrong, as evidenced by his hiding!)

It seems like a simple thing, but at that point, Adam and Eve didn't even have a tendency towards disobedience. Think of it - all paradise, with only one restriction; and with a right heart, the obeying of that restriction is also a joy and a way of giving a gift back to God, their creator and the one that loves them ... can you remember times when you weren't supposed to do something that you rather wanted to do, and you successfully didn't do it, and the joy you had when you reported to your parents or friends that you didn't do it, and how they rejoiced with you? It's kind of hard to express, but I hope you can see at least a shadow of what I mean.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Artanis
I agree with brownjemkins to some extent, I think that of the Valar, Melkor was the one most likely to 'fall', because he was the most powerful. So powerful that he wanted to "create things of his own", and believed himself capable of doing it. This he did not wish to do out of evil intentions. As I see it his 'sin' was to try to be equal to Eru, he refused to recognise his own limits (Aule did in fact make the same mistake, though he repented). But this was something he chose to do, I do not believe he was determined to become evil. I think the bits that I quoted a few posts ago indicate that his intentions were evil, tho, don't you? I don't think Melkor was thinking "I want to become evil!", but he WAS thinking that he wanted to increase his OWN glory, and was willing to purposely do this at the expense of others, which is at the heart of evil, IMO.

[brownjenkins]

interesting... i guess i just don't quite envision a creator in the same way you, and maybe tolkien, does... i'd imagine a bit more give and take and responsibility for the outcome of all of his creations... the easy ones that took the right path, as well as the hard ones that needed a lot more direction

but it is not the first, or the last ;), time we'll be on opposite sides of this issue :)

[Rían]

As long as we can keep meeting in the middle for coffee and a chat, that's ok :)


and as far as responsibility, as far as the Christian God, He took full responsibility for the giving of free will to mankind - that's what the cross is all about.

[Artanis]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
I think the bits that I quoted a few posts ago indicate that his intentions were evil, tho, don't you? I don't think Melkor was thinking "I want to become evil!", but he WAS thinking that he wanted to increase his OWN glory, and was willing to purposely do this at the expense of others, which is at the heart of evil, IMO. :eek: Do I have to read ALL your posts now?


Just kidding of course. :) But I'm not sure which post you're referring to.


No I don't think his intentions were evil to begin with, no more than Aule's intentions were evil. They both wanted to create things of their own, they were both impatient, they were both following their desires but without recognising their limits. And even if Melkor did try to increase his own glory by altering the Great Music, can that be called evil? I don't think so, not unless the intention is to bring forth something bad, and there's no indication that that's what Melkor had in mind at this point.

Also, because he was seeking the Imperishable Flame, Melkor had been on his own most of the time and was perhaps not present when Iluvatar in the very beginning (not for The Great Music) propounded to the other Ainur his themes of music. And so Melkor "had begun to conceive thoughts of his own unlike those of his brethren." Brownjenkins, RÃ*an, Iluvatar did instruct the Ainur, but I think Melkor missed it! :D

However I do agree that the reactions from those two Ainur to Iluvatar's waving finger was totally different. But then again, I also think that it was easier for Aule to repent, because he did not have the desire for mastery over his creations as had Melkor. A desire which was a part of how Iluvatar had created him in the first place! I think when Iluvatar had rebuked Melkor for his dischord in the Music, and Melkor saw that he was unable to fulfil his desires, it was then when he took his first step towards evil. He was "filled with shame, of which came secret anger." Unfortunately he chose to give in to his anger more than to his shame.

[Rían]

It's 5 posts up from yours, but I'll repeat it here for your convenience :D

5 posts up from Arty's post, I said:
And then, further down, "it came into the heart of Melkor to interweave matters of his own imagining that were not in accord with the theme of Iluvatar, for he sought therein to increase the power and glory of the part assigned to himself." And the result of this? "discord arose about him, and many that sang nigh him grew despondent, and their thought was disturbed and their music faltered...

you said: And even if Melkor did try to increase his own glory by altering the Great Music, can that be called evil? I don't think so, not unless the intention is to bring forth something bad, and there's no indication that that's what Melkor had in mind at this point.
Perhaps when he first started, his intent wasn't evil, but I think the fact that those around him "grew despondent" and he didn't stop shows great evil on Melkor's part :(

Maybe it's an English-language thing; but to me, the way it's worded, the "increase the power and glory" sentence shows that Melkor's intent was selfish ambition, and not an innocent thing at all.

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Perhaps when he first started, his intent wasn't evil, but I think the fact that those around him "grew despondent" and he didn't stop shows great evil on Melkor's part :(

Maybe it's an English-language thing; but to me, the way it's worded, the "increase the power and glory" sentence shows that Melkor's intent was selfish ambition, and not an innocent thing at all.


so the bottom line is: some people are good and some people are evil... and, due to free will, there's really not much the creator can do about it one way or another?

[Artanis]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Maybe it's an English-language thing; but to me, the way it's worded, the "increase the power and glory" sentence shows that Melkor's intent was selfish ambition, and not an innocent thing at all. I don't think it's a language thing, I think we differ on what may be called evil. :)

[Rían]

Originally posted by Artanis
I don't think it's a language thing, I think we differ on what may be called evil. :) But don't you think that if you "increase the power and glory" to yourself by hurting others, that it's evil?

by brownjenkins
so the bottom line is: some people are good and some people are evil... and, due to free will, there's really not much the creator can do about it one way or another? No, not quite ... let's see if I can express my thoughts here *muses a bit* ...

There is indeed a LOT the Creator CAN do about it, and a fair amount that He WILL do about it - everything but force people to love Him, which He will not do.

OK (in terms of Christianity, which seems to parallel what we see in ME) - first, free will is a gift - and even now, free will is bounded, or limited, by the Creator - IOW, it's not unlimited. I can set out to murder someone, and God could stop me by, say, a car accident ... altho it's obvious that many murders are allowed at this time :( This concept of limited free will for humans is v. well illustrated in the book of Job, where Satan can only do what God gives him permission to do (we also see it in Middle Earth - the Valar intervene at times, and Iluvatar Himself intervenes, too, tho rarely at this point on the timeline - but more than is shown, as illustrated by Gandalf's comment about Bilbo finding the Ring). Even those in rebellion against God, like Satan, are not free to do whatever they want; their freedom is still bounded, because the simple fact is that it is the TRUTH that they are created beings, and thus are subject to God, whether they like it or not - just saying something is false doesn't make it so, if it is indeed true.

But the most important concept, I think, is that God's heart is not to have a bunch of people following His rules; God's heart is love for His creation, and relationship with His creation, and as anyone knows, forced "love" is not love - love in relationship can only exist with free will - which also puts into existence the possibility of evil, and of rejection of love. We also see this illustrated with how Iluvatar relates to the Valar, esp. that scene with Aule. But the limited freedom of people to choose evil will eventually be taken away - the final choice of those who reject the truth of the state of things will be to choose to enter Hell, over entering Heaven. The Bible says, and it makes sense, that God delays final judgement in order to give people all the time possible to come to Him. And this makes sense - I know that I would willingly endure a lot of evil if it helped anyone come to God, because my time here is only for a short while - followed by an eternity of joy. Also, pain is allowed because it often shocks people out of their false complacency, and gets them to reflect in ways that they normally wouldn't, and hopefully turn to God.

It's just a simple matter of truth - if it is indeed true (which I think it is, based on a ton of evidence :cool: ) that the Bible records the true state of things, then Hell is indeed the choice that people that hate God or deny Him will choose over being in Heaven, because Heaven is a place where God's glory is mind-blowingly evident, and those who love God will rejoice and be in everlasting joy there - and for those who deny or hate God, it would be a horrible place - they would prefer Hell. Hell, as I think I've said before, is a place that God had to make in order to honor the free will that He's given to men that use it to reject Him :(

[Artanis]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
But don't you think that if you "increase the power and glory" to yourself by hurting others, that it's evil?Yes, if the hurting is intentional, but did Melkor hurt someone or wish to hurt someone at the point where the Great Music were made? He rebelled, he was ambitious and obstinate, but did he wish to destroy or do harm? I don't think so, I think at that point he just wanted to create.But the most important concept, I think, is that God's heart is not to have a bunch of people following His rules; God's heart is love for His creation, and relationship with His creation, and as anyone knows, forced "love" is not love - love in relationship can only exist with free will - which also puts into existence the possibility of evil, and of rejection of love.I like that RÃ*an. Forced love is not love. Very true indeed. :)

[Rían]

Originally posted by Artanis
Yes, if the hurting is intentional, but did Melkor hurt someone or wish to hurt someone at the point where the Great Music were made? He rebelled, he was ambitious and obstinate, but did he wish to destroy or do harm? I don't think so, I think at that point he just wanted to create. It seems to me that it was intentional, because I think he must have noticed when his actions made those around him grow "despondent". Not intentional to the point of "I want to make them despondent!", but intentional to the point of "I want MY own way, and I don't care if those around me grow despondent!"

I like that RÃ*an. Forced love is not love. Very true indeed. :) thanks :)

[brownjenkins]

interesting concepts RÃ*an... but it doesn't quite address my question... is the creator responsible for guiding his creations to the path of good or are they just supposed to "figure it out"?

[Rían]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
interesting concepts RÃ*an... but it doesn't quite address my question... is the creator responsible for guiding his creations to the path of good or are they just supposed to "figure it out"?

Oh, but that's a different question (at least to me) than your "there's really not much the creator can do about it one way or another?".

But to answer the "guiding" question - I would say He is certainly responsible to guide, and we see Him do this, but He has chosen to only guide, and not force - IOW, informed free will, I guess you could call it.

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Oh, but that's a different question (at least to me) than your "there's really not much the creator can do about it one way or another?".

But to answer the "guiding" question - I would say He is certainly responsible to guide, and we see Him do this, but He has chosen to only guide, and not force - IOW, informed free will, I guess you could call it.

this basically goes back to my original point... there seemed to be somewhat of a lack of informing and/or guiding on eru's part

which is why i tend towards the "creator as an observer" theory... rarely interfering in affairs of his creation... even the instances in LoTR could be attributed to the valar as opposed to eru... off the top of my head, the only outright interference i can think of is the downfall of numenor... which involved a tampering with the gift of mankind

[Rían]

IMO, it's not a "tampering". I think you misunderstand the scope of the gift - as I said before, I would call it "limited" or "bounded" free will. But that's only MHO :) And I guess we also disagree on the amount of "guiding".

[Fat middle]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
this basically goes back to my original point... there seemed to be somewhat of a lack of informing and/or guiding on eru's part

which is why i tend towards the "creator as an observer" theory... rarely interfering in affairs of his creation... even the instances in LoTR could be attributed to the valar as opposed to eru... off the top of my head, the only outright interference i can think of is the downfall of numenor... which involved a tampering with the gift of mankind

Well, Eru certainly "interferes" with Aulë's making of dwarves. And also he acts after Yavanna's petition of help for her creatures.

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by Fat middle
Well, Eru certainly "interferes" with Aulë's making of dwarves. And also he acts after Yavanna's petition of help for her creatures.

good point... however, in both of these instances (as in the numenor one) eru seems to be acting to preserve his vision of what "life" should be for his various creations... none of them really reflect any sort of morality... at best they say, only i can create life... they don't really touch upon how one should live their life... which seems to resemble the pagan belief systems of ancient mankind, more than the later monotheistic ones

[Rían]

Remember that the more specific rules were not given until the time of Moses. But the basic "rules of morality" are put into every person's heart, acc'd to the Bible (and validated by what we observe).

And any rebellion against Iluvatar is "sin" - not because Iluvatar has an ego problem, but because if Iluvatar is entirely good, than any deviation from Iluvatar is necessarily evil. And any denial of truth, which is entirely contained in Iluvatar, is also evil. And "I will be Iluvatar" falls into both the former and latter category; it is simply not TRUE that Melkor could EVER be God, and it is a deviation from Iluvatar's creation (in the sense that it is a denial of Melkor's very being) for Melkor to try.

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Remember that the more specific rules were not given until the time of Moses. But the basic "rules of morality" are put into every person's heart, acc'd to the Bible (and validated by what we observe).

And any rebellion against Iluvatar is "sin" - not because Iluvatar has an ego problem, but because if Iluvatar is entirely good, than any deviation from Iluvatar is necessarily evil. And any denial of truth, which is entirely contained in Iluvatar, is also evil. And "I will be Iluvatar" falls into both the former and latter category; it is simply not TRUE that Melkor could EVER be God, and it is a deviation from Iluvatar's creation (in the sense that it is a denial of Melkor's very being) for Melkor to try.

since the last thing we need is another religion thread i probably shouldn't touch the first part, but i can help it ;)

the idea of "rules of morality" being put into each person's heart kind of contradicts the "free will" idea... and even if you do buy it, then why the need for more specific rules later?

on the rest, i think you are putting a good bit more christianity into eru than even tolkien, a christian, did... eru does not call melkor evil, or accuse him of sin... in fact, he basically says that melkor's deviations are part of the plan, and in some ways even add to it... eru could very easily have chosen to not let melkor enter arda, but he did not

[Valandil]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
since the last thing we need is another religion thread i probably shouldn't touch the first part, but i can help it ;)

the idea of "rules of morality" being put into each person's heart kind of contradicts the "free will" idea... and even if you do buy it, then why the need for more specific rules later?

on the rest, i think you are putting a good bit more christianity into eru than even tolkien, a christian, did... eru does not call melkor evil, or accuse him of sin... in fact, he basically says that melkor's deviations are part of the plan, and in some ways even add to it... eru could very easily have chosen to not let melkor enter arda, but he did not

*Valandil 'tags' Rian and leaps into the Ring*

Just because the rules are put on a person's heart does not mean they must follow them... just that they will have a pretty good idea when they are not doing so - though they may still choose not to do so. Continually going against those rules written on one's heart has a 'hardening' effect - such that each subsequent action against those rules causes less and less distress for the person doing so... eventually, maybe even less and less awareness that they ARE doing wrong.

Also - I don't think Rian's Eru is any more Christian than Tolkien's and I disagree with some of your last paragraph. Eru did NOT plan on Melkor's deviations - but he was able to subvert Melkor's deviations in such a way that they worked INTO his plan - which was certainly not what Melkor had intended (prob frustrated him to no end!). That's identical to the Christian view of God working evil into good. Also - it was not Melkor's deviations that enhance the plan - but Eru's dealing with Melkor's deviations (big difference).

For a greater discussion of the Christian view of the nature of sin, free will, law, etc - I could go on and on... but you'd be better off to just read the Book of Romans... get a nice, readable modern translation... double-dare ya! ;)

*Valandil extends hand back toward corner, hoping for a 'tag' from Rian (before he gets pulverized!) :p *

[Fat middle]

Originally posted by Valandil
[B]Eru did NOT plan on Melkor's deviations - but he was able to subvert Melkor's deviations in such a way that they worked INTO his plan - which was certainly not what Melkor had intended (prob frustrated him to no end!). That's identical to the Christian view of God working evil into good. Also - it was not Melkor's deviations that enhance the plan - but Eru's dealing with Melkor's deviations (big difference).

I cannot agree more.

Eru "having a plan" (or rules) a running things into it is not opposed to the free will of his creatures. They may fall in evil or not, but that is mainly a problem to them, not to Eru's plan (which would be accomplished sooner or later).

I posted above something that may be related to this:
Originally said by Fat middle:
While playing the music that Eru had designed, they chose (free will) to play their appointed role or not. Some of them are more or less conscious of their own disagreement (Melkor) and some not.

Conscious disagreement leads to moral evil. Unconscious disagreement (the Valar summoning the elves, perhaps) leads only to "physical" evil. Sorry for auto-quoting :p

Both moral and physical evil would perhaps interfere with Eru's plan, but only making it to take a new path to finally being accomplished.

[Radagast The Brown]

Originally posted by RÃ*an


OK (in terms of Christianity, which seems to parallel what we see in ME) - first, free will is a gift - and even now, free will is bounded, or limited, by the Creator - IOW, it's not unlimited. I can set out to murder someone, and God could stop me by, say, a car accident ... altho it's obvious that many murders are allowed at this time :( This concept of limited free will for humans is v. well illustrated in the book of Job, where Satan can only do what God gives him permission to do (we also see it in Middle Earth - the Valar intervene at times, and Iluvatar Himself intervenes, too, tho rarely at this point on the timeline - but more than is shown, as illustrated by Gandalf's comment about Bilbo finding the Ring). Even those in rebellion against God, like Satan, are not free to do whatever they want; their freedom is still bounded, because the simple fact is that it is the TRUTH that they are created beings, and thus are subject to God, whether they like it or not - just saying something is false doesn't make it so, if it is indeed true.
Hmmmm.
Well... Judaism is different then, in the free-will idea. Or that one of us is wrong.

From what I know - God has created the world as it is with free will for the men - he could choose to create it without it. I can't rmember though why... :o

Anyway, the idea of free-will is, that the men can do whatever they choose. But not exactly:
1. To people that make good action will be given 'presents' - wealth, wisdom, luck, to live until long age, etc.
2. Those who sin get punished.
So God doesn't stop people before their bad actions - but afterwards, punish them.

And thoguh there is Satan in the Bible, it is mentioned only in one book. And I haven't learnt it yet... I'm not sure what the Satan is.

And, also, in the bible Hell is not mentioned. I think dead people go to Eden Garden... I'm not sure.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Valandil
*Valandil 'tags' Rian and leaps into the Ring* *RÃ*an plops down on the floor out of breath*

by Val
Just because the rules are put on a person's heart does not mean they must follow them... just that they will have a pretty good idea when they are not doing so - though they may still choose not to do so. Absatootely.

by Val
Eru did NOT plan on Melkor's deviations - but he was able to subvert Melkor's deviations in such a way that they worked INTO his plan - which was certainly not what Melkor had intended (prob frustrated him to no end!). That's identical to the Christian view of God working evil into good. Also - it was not Melkor's deviations that enhance the plan - but Eru's dealing with Melkor's deviations (big difference). I like how you worded that, esp. the last sentence.

by FM
Both moral and physical evil would perhaps interfere with Eru's plan, but only making it to take a new path to finally being accomplished. I like the "new path" picture.

*RÃ*an jumps back in, but doesn't tag Val out, because she likes his company!*

JRRT may not have "recorded" Eru saying the words "Melkor, dude, you're evil", but I don't see how you could think Eru doesn't think Melkor is evil :confused: It's pretty evident in parts like where he is talking to Ulmo about the "bitter cold" that Melkor made, and things like that. JRRT is v. clear about Melkor being evil - esp. in parts like in Valaquenta: of the Enemies.

[brownjenkins]

as far as the big picture goes... i like to think that morality is self-evident... no need for any mystical heart implantations... if the rules don't work in the real world, ultimately they will not be followed, or at least not sincerely anyway

the moral path can be found just by living life... morality is not a means to an end, but an end in itself

on the melkor issue... i think he was a part of eru's plan... when the music was laid out, so was the history of arda... and, while no single ainu might comprehend it all, one gets the feeling that eru did... not only that, but melkor and every other ainu knew eru did... just because eru gave his creations free will does not mean that his understanding is not vast enough to forsee what this free will would lead to

he chose to create melkor in the first place, and to also allow him to enter and remain in arda, in spite of all that melkor did and what was to come

on the christianity bit... i think everyone has a right to read whatever they please into a literary piece (me too ;) )... especially one as grand as tolkien's... but i don't think it was just an oversight on jrrt's part that the "christian" elements that existed in the early "lost tales" (i.e. a segmented afterlife that split the good and the evil) was dropped in later revisions

you can read between the lines as you like, but i notice a marked lack of anything to do with sin, judgement or redemption as far as eru's character goes

[Rían]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
... if the rules don't work in the real world, ultimately they will not be followed, or at least not sincerely anyway So if ... oh, nevermind, this belongs in the religion thread - don't want to get too far OT.

... morality is not a means to an end, but an end in itself What a depressing thought! Glad it's not true. :D

you can read between the lines as you like, but i notice a marked lack of anything to do with sin, judgement or redemption as far as eru's character goes Yes, I agree there's not much.

Tag, I'm out! I'll be out of town for a few days - bye!

[brownjenkins]

enjoy you trip RÃ*an!

[Rían]

"thag you very buch!"

It was quite nice :) Unfortunately there's the "cleaning-up" now - loads of dirty laundry for 5, and cleaning up after the Easter feast, too! But there's no fun without mess, is there? :D

[Stephen]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
is the creator responsible for guiding his creations to the path of good or are they just supposed to "figure it out"?
Iluvatar guides the Ainur like a conductor guides the orchestra. He sets the theme and they "adorn this theme". Another analogy; Iluvatar invented the sound & musical scale that the Ainur master. This is why Melkor, though varying from the intended theme, can't create anything that does not have it's roots in Iluvatar's thought. I think Melkor knew exactly what he was doing and in the context of Tolkien's story Melkor is definitely comitting "evil" since his music was not in accord with the current theme. Iluvatar says "..., I will now that ye make in harmony together a great music". Do I think Melkor is some fool? No. Melkor consciously defies Iluvatar.

This is also a comparative religion topic eh? Like i typed already, in the context of the story Melkor is evil because Tolkien says so but the birth of evil in Ainulindale is as logically flawed as that in christianity. Iluvatar created the Ainur out of his pure thought. How can they contain anything that is not essentially him? So if Melkor is evil then Iluvatar made him so. Iluvatar can't throw seeds in the dirt, make it rain, and expect a desert to remain. Unless, that is, he's not so smart.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Stephen
This is also a comparative religion topic eh? Like i typed already, in the context of the story Melkor is evil because Tolkien says so but the birth of evil in Ainulindale is as logically flawed as that in christianity. Iluvatar created the Ainur out of his pure thought. How can they contain anything that is not essentially him? So if Melkor is evil then Iluvatar made him so. Iluvatar can't throw seeds in the dirt, make it rain, and expect a desert to remain. Unless, that is, he's not so smart.

Not so... for Iluvatar gave his creations Free Will as well... even the freedom to rebel from what he taught or instructed them to do. There's no 'logical flaw' in either case if you see this as a further extension of Iluvatar's / God's graciousness. In both cases, they also know they're quite up to the job of dealing with whatever situation may arise from a disobedient exercise of free will.

The evil to make a wrong choice when given a free choice does not, IMO, imply that the evil originated with the creator of the one who chooses... the evil does not originate with the one who gave the choice to his creation.

[brownjenkins]

is it ever mentioned that eru gave his creations 'free will', in the book or by tolkien... or is that an interpretation?

i hear it a lot here and wonder, as i don't remember seeing it in what i've read :confused:

[Valandil]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
is it ever mentioned that eru gave his creations 'free will', in the book or by tolkien... or is that an interpretation?

i hear it a lot here and wonder, as i don't remember seeing it in what i've read :confused:

Probably an interpretation - though I don't have perfect enough recall to remember whether or not Tolkien specifically said so (anyone else know of one?). It seems a logical interpretation though, just projecting from what we know of JRRT's beliefs and analyzing what he DID write.

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by Valandil
Probably an interpretation - though I don't have perfect enough recall to remember whether or not Tolkien specifically said so (anyone else know of one?). It seems a logical interpretation though, just projecting from what we know of JRRT's beliefs and analyzing what he DID write.

i'm not sure either... it just seems to me that with the whole music thing, it is also perfectly reasonable to assume that eru laid out the entire path for arda... and that 'free will' is just not seeing the whole path, rather than the ability to deviate from the path

after creation eru said:

But when they were come into the Void, Iluvatar said to them: ‘Behold your Music!’ And he showed to them a vision, giving to them sight where before was only hearing; and they saw a new World made visible before them, and it was globed amid the Void, and it was sustained therein, but was not of it. And as they looked and wondered this World began to unfold its history, and it seemed to them that it lived and grew. And when the Ainur had gazed for a while and were silent, Iluvatar said again: ‘Behold your Music! This is your minstrelsy; and each of you shall find contained herein, amid the design that I set before you, all those things which it may seem that he himself devised or added. And thou, Melkor, wilt discover all the secret thoughts of thy mind, and wilt perceive that they are but a part of the whole and tributary to its glory.’

And many other things Iluvatar spoke to the Ainur at that time, and because of their memory of his words, and the knowledge that each has of the music that he himself made, the Ainur know much of what was, and is, and is to come, and few things are unseen by them. Yet some things there are that they cannot see, neither alone nor taking counsel together; for to none but himself has Iluvatar revealed all that he has in store, and in every age there come forth things that are new and have no foretelling, for they do not proceed from the past. And so it was that as this vision of the World was played before them, the Ainur saw that it contained things which they had not thought. And they saw with amazement the coming of the Children of Iluvatar, and the habitation that was prepared for them; and they perceived that they themselves in the labour of their music had been busy with the preparation of this dwelling, and yet knew not that it had any purpose beyond its own beauty. For the Children of Iluvatar were conceived by him alone; and they came with the third theme, and were not in the theme which Iluvatar propounded at the beginning, and none of the Ainur had part in their making. Therefore when they beheld them, the more did they love them, being things other than themselves, strange and free, wherein they saw the mind of Iluvatar reflected anew, and learned yet a little more of his wisdom, which otherwise had been hidden even from the Ainur.

it could be seen as all part of a grand design... melkor included

[Valandil]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
i'm not sure either... it just seems to me that with the whole music thing, it is also perfectly reasonable to assume that eru laid out the entire path for arda... and that 'free will' is just not seeing the whole path, rather than the ability to deviate from the path

...

it could be seen as all part of a grand design... melkor included

Well, you COULD look at it so. It just seems unlikely that this was Tolkien's intent, knowing his own view of God - and the comments he DOES make about patterning Iluvatar after Him.

[Radagast The Brown]

I agree with Valandil.

I think that Iluvatar did not control them, he did give them free will - but tried to influence them for good - sort of like parents do with their children.
There are many differences though. For example - Iluvatar made the Valar the way he wanted, and made their personality from the beginning. He gave them their basic 'hobbies' the things they like. Melkor was like Aule, but he didn't want to learn from others, but to destroy their works. I don't think it means Iluvatar has an evil side.
Perhaps I'm wrong though - maybe he did give them their whole character. But nothing is written about it. Too bad.

(btw - I heard in a computer game that someone used the word 'mayhap'. I guessed it's like maybe and perhaps, and I ask you if this word really exists? It's not in my dictionary, but it doesn't mean much, because many words aren;'t.)

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Radagast The Brown
(btw - I heard in a computer game that someone used the word 'mayhap'. I guessed it's like maybe and perhaps, and I ask you if this word really exists? It's not in my dictionary, but it doesn't mean much, because many words aren;'t.)

Yes - 'mayhap' is a word and you have the right meaning. It's sort of an old word that doesn't get much useage anymore. I see it in old books I read somethings.

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by Valandil
Well, you COULD look at it so. It just seems unlikely that this was Tolkien's intent, knowing his own view of God - and the comments he DOES make about patterning Iluvatar after Him.

fair enough, just looking at it from another possible angle... i do realize tolkien's beliefs... however, he draws off of themes much older then christianity and may, intentionally or not, reflect some of that past

[Valandil]

*bump* for the benefit of 'inked' (if he desires to address it!) ;)

[inked]

Great thread for a read through at one sitting. Lots of civil discourse on the relation of evil and choice and the meanings of free will. True consideration of the intentions of the author within the known data of available comment.
Youse guys are goooood!

One concept I think I could add that might clarify the relation of evil arising in the creation of a GOOD God is the difference between God's ability to know the possibility of evil without the necessity of actualizing it. That is to say God (and yes I am working from a specifically Christian conceptualiztion of Him) can intellectually know that evil is a possibility without calling it into being. Created beings in the hierarchy of the chain of being, not being God, have of necessity a lesser power to comprehend reality and some knowledge to them may not be capable of realization without calling it out of possibility into subcreation (experience). Now in this regard, JRRT's story allows levels of insight that merely stating events or propositions would not. Melkor knows the theme and apparently has adorned it in proper order, but he conceives of the need to aggrandize himself and to be in the place of ERU. Melkor is a creature desiring to replace Eru and Eru's intent with Melkor and Melkor's intent which he, Melkor, realizes is different from Eru's. In that CRUCIBLE OF CHOICE - to stick to the theme or to alter it - Melkor is a free agent who has before him a forked path. And he chose. Because of his circumscribed being, he did not experience this process only as a thought experiment but brought into subcreation the actual disobedience (thematic alteration in musical terms). Upon seeing the reaction of his fellows, his only regard is to self and he further enlarges his alteration and influence even to the point of drawing others into his theme ( an exercise of their freedom to so choose but also limited by actualization or subcreation). This combined alteration expands until all the Ainur are playing to Eru's theme or, and this is critical, their own (which has the appearance of following Melkor but results in noise not thematic development). Evil is thus seen to be derivative, destructive, and to have no separate existence. Had the good not been, evil could not have preyed upon it.

Here Tolkein pictures forth the created order's ability to follow God or to resist Him while relying on Him totally for existence - each being appropriate to his/her/its place in the hiearchy. JRRT uses music. The classical Christian description is light (God - in Whom is no shadow of turning, dwelling in light inaccessible, hid from our eyes by luminosity). Without light there can be no shadow. It is the interposition of self between God and His love that casts shadows. If the self chooses to reflect the light or to be transparent to the light or to become part of the light, the shadow has not even the possibility of existence. Applicably, in Tolkien's use of music every aspect from being to sound exists by Eru. One can join the singing into existence of all there is in harmony or ordered discord as appropriate, thereby adorning the theme and co-creating with Eru OR one can oppose one's theme to Eru's and deliberately distort sound itself which, when joined by others so inclined to self-expression, results not in an organized opposition, but a loud cacaphony of random expressions of self-will to destroy the theme.

JRRT's use of music was for me spectacularly successful in grasping that self-will concealed under the veil of 'creativity' justifies the production not of comprehensible structure, but static. The possibility of static requires the existence of that which could produce it before it can come into being; it is derivative. Thus, says JRRT, is the nature of evil. It is possible, but not inevitable; only disobedience to the Good can call it into being and keep it present. When all is harmonized with Eru, Arda is perfected. When all is not so harmonized, Arda is infected.

The whole point of the story is that each of us can be Melkor or his followers or we can be Valar and harmonizing Ainur. OUR CHOICES MATTER. I have made static, but I have heard the music of the theme of Eru and I would adorn it! I reject Melkor and his noise! I resolve to be and do what Eru called me into existence to be, that which is truly me and my most free, Eru's musician. So mote it be! :D

[ItalianLegolas]

To set the record straight, the modern Christian God also created something evil; the angel Lucifer, a.k.a. The Devil, and then the Devil created all other things that were evil. So Iluvatar is both good and evil, but I tend to think that he is more good then evil. Because in this case Melkor (or Morgoth) of the Valar, and Sauron of the Maiar can both be compared to Lucifer. I think that these angels (because thats what Tolkien wanted the Valar to be, angels, NOT gods), are just bad apples

[inked]

To set the record straight, God, the Christian God, created creatures with free will. One of those chose, primordially, self-will over obedience, and we call him Lucifer, the Devil, the Adversary, the Deceiver. But he was created good, the twin so to speak of Michael the Archangel. But as Screwtape observed, to be truly evil one must have had potential for being truly good. It is a matter of self-actualization in ME and our primary world. Your choices, much more so than your talents, show who you really are - to paraphrase Albus Dumbledore. So says Gandalf of Gollum: there is hope, not much, but some. Each and everyone of us is so choosing everyday. And we are helping each other to that final choice's reality. As CS Lewis observed, it is a terrible thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses whom you would be strongly tempted to worship should you meet them as they shall be or else everlasting horrors such as you meet, if ever now, only in the most horrible nightmare (paraphrased). See THE WEIGHT OF GLORY by CS LEWIS for a fuller consideration.

[Valandil]

To set the record straight, the modern Christian God also created something evil; the angel Lucifer, a.k.a. The Devil, and then the Devil created all other things that were evil. So Iluvatar is both good and evil, but I tend to think that he is more good then evil. Because in this case Melkor (or Morgoth) of the Valar, and Sauron of the Maiar can both be compared to Lucifer. I think that these angels (because thats what Tolkien wanted the Valar to be, angels, NOT gods), are just bad apples

No - to set the record straight, The Devil created NOTHING! He has no power to create.

Evil is not a thing unto itself... it is 'corrupted good'.

'Inked' does a great job explaining what went awry with Lucifer. :)