View Full Version : Iluvatar made Melkor evil?
Artanis
08-02-2002, 03:27 PM
There is one thing in Ainulindale that troubles me: Before the beginning of the World, Iluvatar created the Ainur, offspring of his thought. Melkor was one of them. Does not this imply that evil was present within the spirit, or thoughts of Iluvatar also?
webwizard333
08-02-2002, 06:00 PM
He merely gave Melkor free will. Illuvator did not make him to be evil, rather he became proud and decided that he knew best. Melkor chose "evil", not nessecarily because of the Illuvator.
Sister Golden Hair
08-02-2002, 06:33 PM
The Silmarillin says of Melkor:
Great might was given to him by Iluvatar, and he was coeval with Manwe. In the power and knowledge of all the other Valar he had part, but he turned them to evil purposes and squandered his strength in violence and tyranny. For he coveted Arda and all that was in it, desiring the kingship of Manwe and dominion over the realm of his peers.
From splendor he fell through arrogance to comtempt for all things save himself, a spirit wasteful and pitiless. Understanding he turned to subtlety in perverting to his own will all that he would use, until he became a liar without shame. He began with the desire of light, but when he could not possess it for himself alone, he descended through fire and wrath into a great burning down into Darkness. And darkness he used most in his evil works upon Arda, and filled it with fear for all living things.
Ñólendil
08-03-2002, 02:43 AM
Tolkien once said that in Ilúvatar's original design Melkor was to begin and establish while Manwe was to improve and develop. Those aren't the exact words, it's in Morgoth's Ring, I'm too lazy to look it up. Melkor developed his evil thoughts in his time away from the One, when he was traversing the pathless Void, seeking the Imperishable Flame.
Sister Golden Hair
08-03-2002, 10:55 AM
Right. And the Imperishable Flame is only with Iluvatar.
Archbob the Elder
08-04-2002, 12:52 AM
In many stories, the greatest among the mighty, often fall into darkness. As it is stated in the begginning, Melkor at that time was the greatest of the Valar.
Artanis
08-04-2002, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by webwizard333
He merely gave Melkor free will. Illuvator did not make him to be evil, rather he became proud and decided that he knew best. Melkor chose "evil", not nessecarily because of the Illuvator.
Thank you, yes, that makes sense. I remember now reading somewhere that the ability of any living, conscious creature to exercise its free will is essential in Tolkien's books. Even if it means choosing 'bad' or 'evil'. I like that.
Ancalagon
10-14-2002, 08:04 PM
I posted this reply in another thread of the same subject, so it is fitting to repeat it here;
I fully understand the 'giving of free will' as a gift from Eru to the Ainur. Certainly the comparison is inevitable between the Authors own beliefs and comprehension of 'free will' as a gift from our (his) creator, however, if we (or the Ainur) have no benchmark for knowing wrong or commiting acts of evil, where then does that dissent originally stem from. Is it from the creator?
Surely Melkor, as with any who knows his creator, would only wish to please and seek favour. It must be remembered that;
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the beginning Eru, the One, who....., made the Ainur of his thought.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sil.
So we know that they (The Ainur) were from his mind, of his creation, in his likeness!
Yet, we know that even before the music of the Ainur, Melkor was already spoiled or corrupt;
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Out of the deeps of Ea she (Varda) came to the aid of Manwe; for Melkor she knew from before the making of the Music and rejected him, and he hated her.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sil.
Yet, how does one truly explain the path Melkor walked? Well, this quote from the Ainulindale sums up my arguement, though it is up to each individual to decide for themselves;
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
for each comprehended only that part of the mind of Iluvatar from which he came, and in understanding of their brethern they grew but slowly
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sil.
So Melkor, derived from the thought of Iluvatar, was given the greatest powers, but immediately began to sow discord within the Music from his own imaginings. This is the crux of my thinking on this matter, that these changes were, by design, within Iluvatar himself and maifested by Melkor. He was chosen to cause discord, for this was as Iluvatar meant it to be.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then the themes of Iluvatar shall be played aright, and take being in the moment of their utterance, for all shall fully understand HIS INTENT IN THEIR PART, and each shall know the comprehension of each, and Iluvatar shall give to their thoughts the secret fire, being well pleased
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Melkor might be considered by some, a 'Patsy'. He played out Iluvatars part for him to the letter. His (Melkor) was the fate of creating discord because he was the incarnation of one aspect of Iluvatars persona.
Artanis
10-15-2002, 03:59 PM
Melkor was meant to cause discord? Interesting thought. But if that was his fate, then it's hard to see how that goes with the idea of free will.
Ancalagon
10-15-2002, 05:02 PM
Do you really think the Children of Eru had 'free will?' If one considers the dooms, fates, premonitions, destiny et al, one would think everyone had a life mapped out and woven within the music long before they ventured out beneath the stars and the Sun!
Ñólendil
10-15-2002, 08:08 PM
It is said in the Valaquenta, -- or maybe it was the Ainulindale -- that one of the gifts the One gave to Men was a greater power of free will (greater than that of the Elves, the Ainur or anything or anyone else).
tharkun27
10-15-2002, 11:42 PM
I always thought a major theme was- whatever the dietys did would always somehow add to the glory of the one. No matter how unharmonious Melkor's part in the great music, it was always subtley incorparted by Illuvitar. It always ended up adding to the greater good- somehow fufilling Illuvitar's master plan. Without Melkor, Ulmo would have never conceived of rain, snow, frost, and the clouds. The "one" works in mysterious ways.
MasterMothra
10-16-2002, 12:06 AM
it would seem that an omnipotent "god" would know the outcome of all events before they transpired. if this were applied to the morgoth/eru debate then eru would have known all that morgoth would do before it happened, good and evil. eru is ultimately responsible for what his thought created, but it all makes for a good story in the end. good post!
Artanis
10-16-2002, 02:42 AM
I think free will is essential. The real 'evil' of Melkor was his desire to "be a master over other wills" (Ainulindale).
Originally posted by MasterMothra
it would seem that an omnipotent "god" would know the outcome of all events before they transpired. if this were applied to the morgoth/eru debate then eru would have known all that morgoth would do before it happened, good and evil.Rather than knowing all events before they happen, I think Eru knew all the possibilities and their outcome. Then it's up to every single conscious creature continuously to choose between the possibilities given, good or bad. That is, excercising their free will. Some of the possibilities have consequenses that cause sorrow and grief and suffering in various degrees, and thus would be 'evil', but by Eru's glorious design all possible choices would in the end be of the good, even if it would seem otherwise when the choice was made.
Originally posted by Ñólendil
It is said in the Valaquenta, -- or maybe it was the Ainulindale -- that one of the gifts the One gave to Men was a greater power of free will (greater than that of the Elves, the Ainur or anything or anyone else).This is said in the end of chapter 1 in Quenta Silmarillion.
Tar-Palantir
10-17-2002, 03:11 PM
Melkor is simply a vessel unto wrath. In other words, Melkor was created by Eru with full knowledge of who he would be and what he would do. But Eru purposed to allow Melkor to lay down his plans and wreak his havoc on the world - which Melkor did freely, without any coercion - and Eru did this for his own good purposes.
This in no way impugns the righteous character of Eru.
Why must the idea of a universe of free intelligent creatures making all their own decisions, and the concept of an all-knowing Eru sovereignly working his purpose in and through them all be seen as incompatible?
Artanis
10-17-2002, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by Tar-Palantir
Why must the idea of a universe of free intelligent creatures making all their own decisions, and the concept of an all-knowing Eru sovereignly working his purpose in and through them all be seen as incompatible? Because, if the creator knows all decisions beforehand, it implies that the creator has created all intelligent creatures (too many creat-ings here, not very intelligent of me :rolleyes: ), so that they would take exactly those decisions. In that case free will is only an illusion.
webwizard333
10-17-2002, 10:19 PM
Because, if the creator knows all decisions beforehand, it implies that the creator has created all intelligent creatures (too many creat-ings here, not very intelligent of me ), so that they would take exactly those decisions. In that case free will is only an illusion.
I'd disagree with that. Simply knowing the outcome doesn not nescitate having made it to be so. Just because there is knowledge of what the choice shall be, does not mean that it still lacks the vestige of free will, which I think the Anuir did have, though to a lesser degree than man having basically sung out their lives in the Great Music.
Tar-Palantir
10-18-2002, 09:43 AM
someone wrote, [In that case free will is only an illusion.]
I apologize for being vague with credit for the quote, I'm still getting used to the way this board works.
First, I hope to keep the discussion on the theology of Arda from Tolkien's viewpoint rather than on my ordinary, everyday, personal theology. (grin) But our own views of theology do affect our interpretations of Tolkien's, do they not?
Take Feanor. Feanor acted uncoerced in his making of the Silmarils, and in his leaving them with his father for a short time. Melkor acted in an uncoerced way in his robbery of the Silmarils and murder of Feanor's father. (Finwe? I don't have the book at hand.) Feanor again acts in an uncoerced way in taking the awful oath to gain back the silmarils at whatever cost. Thus, you have the Quenta Silmarillion.
But was not all this played out ahead of time in the music of the Ainur? And does not Iluvatar himself state that even the rebellion of Melkor in the muisic was allowed for his own purpose and in the end they will see the beauty it brought without which Arda would have been incomplete? I wish I had the book in front of me to give the quote, but I distinctly remember it because, as a student of theology, I was very interested in the theology of Middle-earth as I read the Silmarillion. I may be wrong. Quote pending. (grin)
My point is, no outside force compelled Feanor or Melkor for that matter to make any decision against their will. And yet, all was destined, if you will, in the music of the Ainur before the world began.
The two concepts are not incompatible. If they were, neither Melkor nor Feanor could be held responsible for his actions, as they so clearly are.
Does that make sense?
Sister Golden Hair
10-18-2002, 12:05 PM
What part does fate, or predestination play outside of free will especially in the case of Feanor I wonder? Tolkien speaks a great deal about fate and doom. If any of it was fate then does that not mean it was meant to happen and no actions on anyone's part could have changed it? Or, does it mean that (this is your fate, your actions will dictate its outcome)? If the later is the case, then would that be free will?
Lief Erikson
10-18-2002, 12:41 PM
You know, this debate is very similar to the one of whether God created evil when he created Satan. In fact, many of the overall themes that are in the Silmarillion are to be found in the Bible. The Noldor going their own way, departing from Valinor could be corrolated with Israel turning away from God, and then in both instances, they are punished for this. God repeatedly punishes this action of the Israelites, through the Assyrians and many others. In the Silmarillion they are punished by Melkor until Earendil's voyage, when he turns back to Valinor/God. Then they are saved, as in the War of Wrath.
I realize that that is off topic, but I only just realized that as I was reading this thread, and it struck me as interesting.
Melkor was given great power and splendor, it said in the Silmarillion, but he became arrogant and that was what caused him to go wrong. His first sins were pride and envy, after that came that hatred and anger and all that. Eru permitted Melkor to take these choices because they were his to make.
I think that in Middle Earth, man certainly did have free will, to make their own decisions. And Eru can use the decisions of men to his own purposes.
It's like if you have a choice whether to go into a house or not. You could choose to go in, and if you choose that, then Eru knew in advance what you were going to do. But you could choose to remain outside of the house, and if you choose that, then Eru knew in advance what you were going to do. He knows, but that doesn't stop you from having a choice. You can make up your own mind, and you can't blame your actions on predestination, for you had the ability to do something different. You simply chose not to. Eru wants the people of Middle Earth to do what is right, and it's their own choice whether they do or not. But whether they do right or evil, he knows. Simply because someone knows in advance what you are going to do does not mean it isn't your choice and your decision.
Lanelf
10-18-2002, 11:13 PM
See, I don't think of Melkor as evil, really. Iluvatar gave him free choice and I don't think he chose bad as much as different. I know it's been a while since I read the Sil, but didn't he just want to introduce his own theme to the Music? It wasn't entirely what you could call his fault that it created dischords - have you ever tried improvising in an orchestra!?!;)
Lanelf.
Lief Erikson
10-21-2002, 12:49 AM
So you do not believe in evil?
Artanis
10-21-2002, 04:19 AM
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I think that in Middle Earth, man certainly did have free will, to make their own decisions. And Eru can use the decisions of men to his own purposes.
It's like if you have a choice whether to go into a house or not. You could choose to go in, and if you choose that, then Eru knew in advance what you were going to do. But you could choose to remain outside of the house, and if you choose that, then Eru knew in advance what you were going to do. He knows, but that doesn't stop you from having a choice. You can make up your own mind, and you can't blame your actions on predestination, for you had the ability to do something different. You simply chose not to. Eru wants the people of Middle Earth to do what is right, and it's their own choice whether they do or not. But whether they do right or evil, he knows. Simply because someone knows in advance what you are going to do does not mean it isn't your choice and your decision. This is why I love this site, I'm constantly forced to question my own opinions! :) Lief Erikson and others, your explanations are good. But I'm still in doubt. If Eru knew all desitions of his Children in advance, didn't he also know at the time of the creation of these Children? And if so, how could he not have made them this way? It's still contradictory to me. I'm more happy with SGH's latter interpretation.
Lief Erikson
10-21-2002, 12:32 PM
Ahhh, could you please rephrase your question? I don't quite get what you're asking.
Lanelf
10-21-2002, 06:15 PM
So you do not believe in evil?
Well, it's not that I don't believe in it, just I don't think Melkor was. I mean, some *humans* are evil! But Melkor was (at least at first) just trying to introduce his own theme and stuff.
Lanelf.
Sister Golden Hair
10-21-2002, 06:32 PM
Originally posted by Lanelf
Well, it's not that I don't believe in it, just I don't think Melkor was. I mean, some *humans* are evil! But Melkor was (at least at first) just trying to introduce his own theme and stuff.
Lanelf. Wrong. Morgoth intentionally caused dischord in the music.
Lief Erikson
10-21-2002, 07:05 PM
Lanelf, what is your definition of evil?
Originally posted by Artanis
If Eru knew all desitions of his Children in advance, didn't he also know at the time of the creation of these Children? And if so, how could he not have made them this way?
Lief Erikson, is this the part you are asking her to rephrase? I think what she means is -- is there a way that Eru could have made the Children so that they would not make evil choices. (Sissel, you of the speaking 4 or 5 languages (I'm so jealous ;) ), correct me if I'm wrong :) )
And SGH, I agree with you, it was not just an artistic urge that made Melkor try to change the Music.
And to answer my rephrasing of Artanis' question (whether or not she meant it!), C. S. Lewis, in his book "The Problem of Pain", deals with the whole free will issue and many of its ramifications. Some quick quotes from a section where he is talking about the necessity of having a fixed environment in order for people to express their free will, and the problems that arise from evil motives : And if souls are free, they cannot be prevented from dealing with the problem by competition instead of by courtesy. And once they have advanced to actual hostility, they can then exploit the fixed nature of matter to hurt one another. The permanent nature of wood which enables us to use it as a beam also enables us to use it for hitting our neighbour on the head. .... We can, perhaps, conceive of a world in which God corrected the results of this abuse of free will by His creatures at every moment: so that a wooden beam became soft as grass when it was used as a weapon, and the air refused to obey me if I attempted to set up in it the sound waves that carry lies or insults. But such a world would be one in which wrong actions were impossible, and in which, therefore, freedom of the will would be void; nay, if the principle were carried out to its logical conclusion, evil thoughts would be impossible, for the cerebral matter which we use in thinking would refuse its task when we attempted to frame them."
A bit of a long quote, but I think it expresses pretty well how Eru could have made Melkor not evil, but just with free will, which implies choices to choose from, some of which were, unfortunately, evil. Opinions?
MasterMothra
10-21-2002, 11:33 PM
perhaps eru was a humerous god and enjoyed watching what would transpire in middle earth with indifference. eru was simply watching tv and the sitcom was arda.
Lief Erikson
10-22-2002, 01:35 AM
I agree, R*an. I don't think that there is any way that you can make someone not able to do evil but still having free choice, unless it is their very nature to not want to do evil. If doing good was what they wanted to do in the start, then that would conquer evil. They had the ability to do it, but they simply didn't want to. This plainly is the ideal, for Earth or Middle Earth. Unattainable in Earth unless you believe in Christ, but that's a matter of religion.
However, they do have free will, so even if it is their nature to do good, they have the ability to do evil if they wish to. Melkor was powerful, and he had a great deal of strength and wisdom. His nature in the beginning was probably the same as that of the other Valar, but unlike them, he wasn't content, and wanted more. He wanted something of his own, and so commited his first sins, arrogance and envy. Those led away from his nature and he chose the choices that weren't natural to him, but led to his darker sins, and to his final, biting and hating malice.
God/Eru can make something pure and beautiful and noble, but by giving it free choice, it has the ability to go wrong if it sets its mind to selfishness.
Artanis
10-22-2002, 03:26 AM
Originally posted by R*an
Lief Erikson, is this the part you are asking her to rephrase? I think what she means is -- is there a way that Eru could have made the Children so that they would not make evil choices. No. I was repeating myself, trying to express my doubt about the idea of Eru creating the Ainur, Elves and Men with free will, but at the same time knowing all their choices and their outcome. It seems contradictory. Sorry if it didn't make sense, my English is not always good, whatever R*an says. :)
(Sissel, you of the speaking 4 or 5 languages (I'm so jealous ;) ), correct me if I'm wrong :) ) Am I speaking 4 or 5 languages? Well if you count my rather bad German and a few words and phrases in French ... oh yes of course, Swedish and Danish :p . And do Java and C++ count? ;)
A bit of a long quote, but I think it expresses pretty well how Eru could have made Melkor not evil, but just with free will, which implies choices to choose from, some of which were, unfortunately, evil. Opinions? I think Eru gave Melkor, and all the other Ainur, and Elves and Men, the gift of free will, to do good and seemingly evil. For Eru also said, what seem to be evil actions against His will, by His glorious design will be turned to something beautiful and good in the end.
The question is, as someone put it, what is this free will? Are the choices pre-determined by Eru as created by Him? Or are they not, but known to Eru in advance? Or are they neither pre-determined nor known, but merely choices subject to Eru's 'corrections'? My impression is Eru didn't know in advance every event in Arda. Some examples: Aule's decision to create the Dwarves. The downfall of Men. The rebellion of the Numenoreans. In these cases Eru was forced, as I see it, to take direct action onto the world.
Artanis
10-22-2002, 03:37 AM
Originally posted by MasterMothra
perhaps eru was a humerous god and enjoyed watching what would transpire in middle earth with indifference. eru was simply watching tv and the sitcom was arda. That's in line with what I've been thinking sometimes. :D Iluvatar was simply bored, so he created the Ainur to cheer him up, and then created the world as their toy to play with, with Him as the playleader. :eek:
Tar-Palantir
10-22-2002, 12:23 PM
Here is my thesis:
1. foreknowledge = predestination
2. predestination and free choice do not contradict each other.
3. A universe which contains evil does not mean the Creator of said universe is evil, nor does it make him guilty.
I'll start with number 3 first: What Iluvatar brings into being is a moral universe with free creatures. His universe has the potential for evil, but that evil does not spring from him. In a moral universe, good cannot exist without evil and vise versa. There must be the ugliness of evil to appreciate the beauty of the good. Therefore even evil has its purpose.
Now, the second one: All of history was pre-determined within the music of the Ainur. Was it not? I don't think the idea of destiny can be denied within Tolkien's universe. And yet, all of that history unfolds as free creature's make uncoerced decisions. Does it not? Do we see Iluvatar coercing any actions? No. And the outcomes are determined as much by the free decisions of the creatures as they are by the music of the Ainur. The point is, both are true. The fact that Melkor and others freely choose evil is proven by the fact that they are held responsible and punished for their actions. If their choice is not really theirs, they cannot be held responsible for it.
And now the first: If Iluvatar knows the outcome from the beginning and yet allows it, has he not then predestined that outcome? He could have changed it, but he chose not to. One might suppose that Iluvatar had an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of possibilities, histories, outcomes at his disposal. He freely chose the one he chose. He allowed the free choices of the Ainur in the music. He knew what part each would play. He allowed them to do so for his own purpose. Thus his foreknowledge IS predestination.
I know this was too long. Forgive me.
Sister Golden Hair
10-22-2002, 12:30 PM
Well said Tar-Palantir.
Welcome, Tar-Palantir, since by your post count you seem to be a newbie :) And I don't think your post was too long, you should see some of mine! (Right, SGH?)
I really like what you expressed, but I would just slightly reword one part - where you said In a moral universe, good cannot exist without evil and vise versa. I would say that free choice cannot exist without the possibility of evil (as opposed to the actual presence of evil) (however, it is all too evident that in this world, evil is present as well as possible :( )
I like how you worded these two ideas: What Iluvatar brings into being is a moral universe with free creatures. His universe has the potential for evil, but that evil does not spring from him. and: The fact that Melkor and others freely choose evil is proven by the fact that they are held responsible and punished for their actions. If their choice is not really theirs, they cannot be held responsible for it.Good points, IMHO.
(and that's my secret for long posts - quote other people's posts a lot! :D ) (not that post length matters, but post count! Entmoot joke! m-u-s-t- g-e-t t-o 60,000 t-o c-a-t-c-h S-G-H (heehee) )
Sister Golden Hair
10-22-2002, 12:36 PM
And I don't think your post was too long, you should see some of mine! (Right, SGH?)Indeed Tar-Palantir. Just go visit the Athrabeth thread. Nothing but a bunch of gabby girls in that one.
:D
(SGH, check my edited post on the bottom part - can't you pleeezzee add a few posts to my count? Aw, comeon, just 50,000 or so :D )
Sister Golden Hair
10-22-2002, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by R*an
(SGH, check my edited post on the bottom part - can't you pleeezzee add a few posts to my count? Aw, comeon, just 50,000 or so :D ) I wish I knew what my real post count was. And my 60,000 was put there because of the bonehead spammers.:( I mean I am not that gabby.
I know, I just think it's funny. The first time I saw that, I really did a double-take.
Lief Erikson
10-22-2002, 04:20 PM
Welcome, Tar Palantir! Great to have you here!
I actually think that pre-destination is disproved simply by the fact that evil exists, unless you assume that Eru has evil a part of his personality. Because the creatures that he created do evil, sometimes, and if he is a good and perfect God, but one who has pre-destined everyone's lives, then he wouldn't include evil in them unless it was a part of his personality.
Free will is what defeats pre-destination. He didn't want a universe of robots; what a bore that would be to sing into being, and what a boring song! Because he is the creator, he knows what choices people will make this this new gift he has given them: free will. But that is simply foreknowledge.
If you're name is Mike, and you're a human on the planet Earth. Your brother, John, tells you that he is going to be doing a burglary on the bank in the city where you live, and you have two choices. You can turn him in to the police, or you can let him do what he wants. You have foreknowledge of what he's going to do, but that doesn't effect what he does, or what your choices are. It doesn't mean that you made him rob the bank; you aren't in control of what his free will has made him decide to do. This puts you in Eru's position.
Only Eru knows all the outcomes, for everything. He might stretch his hand into circumstances and what happens and do what he pleases to bring about his final plan.
Now let's say you're John, not Mike. You have two choices, rob the bank, or don't rob the bank. It's up to you what you do. You decide to rob the bank, and tell Mike about it. YOUR decision is made, and Mike (Eru), who can see all ends, has his own decisions to make based upon what he knows to be right. Mike isn't making you rob the bank, simply because he knows you're going to do it.
Oh, and Tar Palantir, I disagree with you about evil being necessary to have good. You can have good without evil, but simply not knowing evil doesn't mean you can't be completely happy doing and knowing goodness. I'm thinking of Adam and Eve when I say this. But the knowledge of evil is probably necessary for you to have the knowledge of grace.
Artanis
10-23-2002, 03:46 AM
Welcome Tar-Palantir! I saw your post count just now. Hope you enjoy yourself here. :)
Originally posted by Tar-Palantir
1. foreknowledge = predestinationAgree. But I'm not sure Eru knew everything in detail on beforehand, see 2 and 3.
2. predestination and free choice do not contradict each other.This is where I don't agree. I still hold on to this: If Eru had foreknowledge of every choice his creatures would take before he created them, then he is ultimately responsible for all actions of his creatures, and free will is not free, only seemingly so.
You say all history was pre-determined within the music of the Ainur. I think that's right in a large scale, in macrocosmos, and is what might be called destiny. But history does not need to be predetermined at the level of each individual. As you say, history unfolds as free creatures make free choices, but rather than these choices being predetermined, I think there's numerous possible combinations of choices which all contributes to the predestined history of the world in the end. But Eru does not know in advance the choice of each individual.
And mustn't we also remember that the Ainur do not come from the music?
3. A universe which contains evil does not mean the Creator of said universe is evil, nor does it make him guilty.I agree with this, but I think Eru at least is capable of doing evil. The Ainur represent different parts of his personality, and they were capable of doing evil, at least Melkor was. Also I agree with Lief Erikson in that you don't have to know evil to appreciate goodness.
I don't know if all this makes sense, I'm just trying to explain it to myself. You people are of great help! :)
Lief Erikson
10-23-2002, 11:42 AM
Well, sure it makes sense. That doesn't mean it's true, mind ;) it means that it's a plausible theory. We all simply have to decide for ourselves which of the possible theories floating around in this forum is the right one, or if any of them are.
Well, if my last example, taking the situation into human terms, doesn't explain things, I don't know how to. A human, simply because he has foreknowledge of another human's actions, doesn't control that person's decisions or actions. The same can be applied to Eru. But, it is his responsibility. It is a human's responsibility, if they know what another human is planning to do, to tattle-tale if it is an evil thing. Then they are prevented. It is Eru's responsibility to see that everything comes right in the end. He does know, and that gives him responsibility. But it is plain simply from the fact that there is evil in existence that there isn't both predestination and a loving God. There is evil because there is free choice.
Tar-Palantir
10-24-2002, 10:39 AM
Lief, [But it is plain simply from the fact that there is evil in existence that there isn't both predestination and a loving God. There is evil because there is free choice.]
Are you speaking of Eru and middle-earth, or are we crossing over into theology proper here? (grin)
Lief Erikson
10-24-2002, 12:18 PM
To me it doesn't matter, either or. Tolkien's God is being described the exact same way as the God I believe in, so I'm attributing my opinions of one to both. This is a discussion of predestination, among other things, be it real life predestination or Middle Earth predestination. Although for those who do not believe in God, they can still post in this thread discussing the Middle Earth predestination.
Either way, you cannot have evil, predestination, and a loving God. One of them has to give, and as evil is proven to exist in both worlds, and Eru being loving is being assumed in this thread. So I'm assuming that predestination has to go. My reasons for why and how it can go are described in previous posts . . . I haven't seen any responses to my examples.
Sister Golden Hair
10-24-2002, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
To me it doesn't matter, either or. Tolkien's God is being described the exact same way as the God I believe in, so I'm attributing my opinions of one to both. This is a discussion of predestination, among other things, be it real life predestination or Middle Earth predestination. Although for those who do not believe in God, they can still post in this thread discussing the Middle Earth predestination.
Either way, you cannot have evil, predestination, and a loving God. One of them has to give, and as evil is proven to exist in both worlds, and Eru being loving is being assumed in this thread. So I'm assuming that predestination has to go. My reasons for why and how it can go are described in previous posts . . . I haven't seen any responses to my examples. But does not the Bible say "The very hairs of your head are numbered?" Wouldn't you say that this is a reference to pre-knowledge of events to come to the people of the world or predestination? Doesn't the Bible also say that everything is written? I would prefer not to turn this into a religious debate outside of Tolkien, but we can compare his ideas to our own world and God.
Originally posted by MasterMothra
perhaps eru was a humerous god and enjoyed watching what would transpire in middle earth with indifference. eru was simply watching tv and the sitcom was arda.
But what were the commercials? :D
I haven't checked in this thread for a few days - what a nice and interesting discussion :) Let me go get a few of your comments and then comment on your comments ... *pages back to beginning, being a very methodical person*
Well, I totally disagree with Ancalagon's conclusion that because evil was chosen by Melkor, that evil is present in Eru. I like Tar-Palantir's summary, especially how he/she (I'm sorry, I don't know which one applies to you :) ) says "This in no way impugns the righteous character of Eru." I agree.
Another from Tar-Palantir: 1. foreknowledge = predestination ..... And now the first: If Iluvatar knows the outcome from the beginning and yet allows it, has he not then predestined that outcome?
Now here is where I have a slight difference of opinion. I think there is a difference between foreknowledge and predestination. I think you can (if you are God, as I believe in Him, or Eru, as described by Tolkien) have foreknowledge of everything, and yet not "predestine" it. (this is so hard to try to talk about deep and complex thoughts using a keyboard and a limited language! It's hard enough expressing complex HUMAN thoughts thru language, let alone thoughts about GOD, who is by definition above our complete comprehension and thus cannot be fully described by any language). I think that free will and foreknowledge are perfectly compatible, when you are talking about God or Eru being the one having the foreknowledge.
For example, some Christians talk about the "will of God" when considering certain choices. For example, if you just graduated from college and you have 2 job offers, which should you take? I used to think one was "the will of God" and the other wasn't. However, as I have grown over the years, I believe that it isn't that simple. I believe that the "will of God" is more in the moral statements, such as "love your neighbor as yourself", etc., as opposed to actions, as long as the actions are not immoral (i.e., adultery is always wrong). If there are no moral problems with either job choice, then I believe that both are compatible with God's will. See, the choice is mine, but I believe that God, being God, knew which one I would choose beforehand.
Tar-Palantir
10-24-2002, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
But does not the Bible say "The very hairs of your head are numbered?" Wouldn't you say that this is a reference to pre-knowledge of events to come to the people of the world or predestination? Doesn't the Bible also say that everything is written? I would prefer not to turn this into a religious debate outside of Tolkien, but we can compare his ideas to our own world and God.
SGH, I don't want to cross any lines here, so let me know if I do. I'm new here you know.
But I think that whether we are discussing Arda or the real world, we must let scripture determine its theology. Scripture to Arda would be Tolkien's writings. I think Tolkien makes it abundantly clear that all the history of the world took place in the music of the Ainur before the world began. If that's not predestination, I don't know what is.
As for the real world, that predestination is taught in Bible I think is undeniable as well. And I am willing to demonstrate that if it's okay with the administrator. But if you think it would be better, we could take it to the general discussion board or private e-mail. What do you think?
I also recognize that this is not a Christian board per se and many here are not ready or willing to accept the Christian Bible as an authority in theological matters. But we all do bring our own world-views to the table don't we? And that's not a bad thing.
Hi, Tar-Palantir! I finally finished editing my post (2 above yours) - could you check it out, since I was commenting on a post of yours? (you may have missed my edits, because your post came after mine.) I'd like your opinion. Sorry it took so long, I have a sick kid at home (sick enough to stay home from school, but not sick enought to not be bored!) and I'm popping in and out...
and if I recall correctly, I believe it was stated that NOT all the history was in the music... I'll try to find the reference :) .
Sister Golden Hair
10-24-2002, 01:44 PM
My dear Tar-Palantir, I agree with you and have no problem discussing the comparisons of simularities between our own world and the wrold of Tolkien. If religion in the real world falls into the discussion, that is fine, as long as it pertains to Tolkien, then it belongs in this forum. We must be careful not to stray away from the comparisons which then would make this an off topic discussion that would no longer belong here.
Tar-Palantir
10-24-2002, 01:50 PM
How do you get the key-board to make an accent mark?
Thanks for pointing me to your previous post and letting me know you edited it. I just finished editing mine. I only changed a word though.
I think there are two undeniable truths taught in the Bible.
One is that God is sovereign. And the other is that man is responsible. The two truths are compatible. If we have trouble reconciling them, it is due to the limitations that we have as finite creatures attempting to fathom an infinite God.
I see both of these ideas played out in the Silmarillion also to one degree or another.
My personal theology is that of classical Protestantism as embodied in the Westminster confessions of faith.
But if I had to pin-point a theology for Tolkien in middle-earth I would have to classify it as Pelagian. Pelagianism has man as morally neutral with the ability to choose to be either good or evil. In Pelagian thought, man is not corrupt, but corruptible. That sure seems the case in the Sil. I see the characters as corruptible, but not inherently corrupt. Ever notice that there is very little crime in middle-earth?
Lief Erikson
10-24-2002, 03:01 PM
Well, maybe the Silmarillion is Pelagian and maybe it isn't. But there are undeniably some Christian themes in it, and for the sake of continuing the discussion about predestination, I'm going to assume that Eru is exactly the same as God.
Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
But does not the Bible say "The very hairs of your head are numbered?" Wouldn't you say that this is a reference to pre-knowledge of events to come to the people of the world or predestination? Doesn't the Bible also say that everything is written? I would prefer not to turn this into a religious debate outside of Tolkien, but we can compare his ideas to our own world and God.
The Bible does say that the hairs on your head are numbered, and although I don't remember whether or not it says everything is written, it certainly seems possible to me. All I can do is emphasize the difference between decision making and knowing.
If you tell someone named Mike you are going to murder someone named Cathy, then Mike knows that you are going to murder Cathy. The decision as to whether or not you murder Cathy is still your own. Mike knows that you're going to murder Cathy, but that doesn't mean that it isn't your decision. Mike isn't the one who is murdering Cathy, you are. It is Mike's responsibility to do something about it, and it is his responsibility to do right for the correct final outcome, but it isn't him that is directly responsible for what you do.
Simply because God/Eru knows everything doesn't mean that he makes everyone do what they do, or that he decided beforehand what everyone is going to do. Simply because he is God and not human Mike doesn't mean that his knowing is different in this instance than human knowing. Human knowledge and human action are different. You cannot murder Cathy and then say "Mike made me do it." That would be stupid. Mike didn't make you murder Cathy, even if he did know that you were going to do it.
Would someone please explain to me why Mike did murder Cathy?
Tar-Palantir
10-24-2002, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Simply because God/Eru knows everything doesn't mean that he makes everyone do what they do, or that he decided beforehand what everyone is going to do. Simply because he is God and not human Mike doesn't mean that his knowing is different in this instance than human knowing. Human knowledge and human action are different. You cannot murder Cathy and then say "Mike made me do it." That would be stupid. Mike didn't make you murder Cathy, even if he did know that you were going to do it.
Would someone please explain to me why Mike did murder Cathy?
I am not denying the responsibility of free creatures for their own actions. You seem to imply that I am.
The men who crucified Christ, were they acting freely, or were their actions pre-determined?
Lief Erikson
10-24-2002, 03:27 PM
They were acting freely, for the most part, although it is possible that the devil also was using them somewhat to his own ends. Unlike God, the devil does like to take control of people whenever they give an opening, and those people's hatred of Jesus was definitely an opening. You realize that in the New Testament it says "The devil entered into Judas."
Because Eru/God knows everything, he can send Jesus to die on the cross and know that it will take place, and we aren't denying that he can manipulate events to some extent to bring about his own purposes. The Assyrian invasion of Israel, for example, and those other nations that conquered them as a punishment from God. The punishment of the Noldor by Melkor when they turned away from the Valar/God, and when Earniel makes the trip back/the Israelites prayed to God for help, he/the Valar came back in power to help them.
However, what I'm disagreeing with is the attack on free will that predestination makes, and I was pointing out that these people's actions are their OWN actions in my example. As yet, someone believing in predestination has yet to show me that it was really Mike who killed Cathy. I don't think it was.
Originally posted by Tar-Palantir
How do you get the key-board to make an accent mark?Boy, are you asking the right person! :D First I ask nicely, then I glare at it, then I throw it across they room.... :D If that doesn't work, here is a copy of what a fellow Mooter (Ñólendil - he has 2 diacritical marks in his name!) sent to me on the subject:
It's the Alt number thingy. "*" is Alt+161.
Here's a bit of a list to help you:
á Alt+160
* Alt+161
ó Alt+162
ú Alt+163
é Alt+130
ä Alt+132
ë Alt+137
ï Alt+139
Ä Alt+142
ö Alt+148
Ö Alt+153
¿ Alt+168
Þ Alt+0222
þ Alt+0254
ñ Alt + 164
Ñ Alt + 165
¿ Alt+168
æ Alt+145
Æ Alt+146
û Alt+150
É Alt +144 So, Tar-Palantir, hold down the alt key, type the number, then release the alt key. HOWEVER, if you have an especially irritating computer, like mine and several other Mooters, some of the numbers won't work, and you won't be able to get many of the marks. That is why I put all of the special characters in my sig, so I can cut and paste them into my posts, because they are part of the visual beauty of Tolkien's works for me and I like to have them there. Good luck! Let me know which method works for you. :)
ps - since you did ask about the marks, you might be interested in one of my favorite threads - Writing Using Tengwar Characters, in the Middle Earth forum. Check it out! you might like it.
Sister Golden Hair
10-24-2002, 04:03 PM
It seems to me that some of the example you are useing Lief, could involve the laws of man also which could have an impact on the outcome of events. I think we should express just what our own definitions are of predetermined fates. Let me use a comon example. You often hear people say that when someone dies it must have been their time. If someone for instance is in a car wreck, and they were not wearing a seatbelt, and were thrown from the car and killed, was it their time to die, or would they have lived had they worn a seatbelt. If it is predestination, then they would have died nomattewhat. It was meant to be. Planned by a devine preasence. What if someone takes a shortcut home from the store and is robbed and killed by another person? Was that meant to be, or would that person have made it home safely had he not taken a shortcut and gone another way?
I think in Tolkien in regards to Morgoth's actions and how much Eru is to blame for that is not so difficult as we make it out to be and even in our own world of belief in this. Eru created the Valar to serve him. He gave them free will, and once free will is in place, I guess predestination would then play a smaller role, because then the choices that are made determine the outcome of events. Eru started out never anticipating evil, the same as our own God with Satan. God created Satan, so is God to blame for that evil? Eru created Morgoth, is Eru to blame for that evil?
If you are the master of a creation, how much of the responsibility is yours, if that creation goes bad. Even likewise, should God, or Eru be given the credit for all the good their creation brings about?
You know, I just had a thought - to use the example of our own world - actually, according to the Bible and the Christian faith, God did, in a sense, take responsibility - He sent His Son, Jesus, to pay the penalty of our sin for us, if we choose to accept it. That does not relieve us of the responsibility of our sin - there are still consequences, etc. - but the penalty has been paid for each individual person, if they choose to accept it. So God, knowing ahead of time that evil was a possibility, also planned ahead of time a way to atone for that possibility.
Does that make sense? I never quite thought of salvation in that light until reading thru the posts on this thread.
and SGH, your example of the car wreck, etc. are more difficult for me to understand. There is no free will involved here on the part of the person who was killed. I'll have to muse on that one awhile... I have some thoughts, but again, they are hard to formulate into sentences that you can type.
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Would someone please explain to me why Mike did murder Cathy?
He was probably in a really foul mood because his stupid keyboard couldn't make diacritical marks, and he wanted to type his name with the little accent-thingy over the "i", like "M*ke", then Cathy taunted him about it and he lost it.... :)
Artanis
10-24-2002, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
I think in Tolkien in regards to Morgoth's actions and how much Eru is to blame for that is not so difficult as we make it out to be and even in our own world of belief in this. Eru created the Valar to serve him. He gave them free will, and once free will is in place, I guess predestination would then play a smaller role, because then the choices that are made determine the outcome of events. Eru started out never anticipating evil, the same as our own God with Satan. God created Satan, so is God to blame for that evil? Eru created Morgoth, is Eru to blame for that evil?Well put SGH. You express yourself better than me. Thank you. :)
Lief Erikson
10-24-2002, 04:45 PM
I agree with you, R*an. God sent his only son onto the cross to bring us back to where we should have remained. Eden went wrong, and evil began. On the cross, Christ opened up the way for evil to end for each one of us, that we need not be slaves to it any longer.
God is the root of all goodness in our lives, and the devil is the root of all the evil. God started all of the blessings humanity is blessed with, like imagination, wit, intelligence, etc. The devil captured us in his grip, so that we cannot help but do evil, and he made it enslave us, becoming part of our nature. We often think, before we accept Christ into our hearts, that we're fine people. Remember Scrooge in The Christmas Carol confronting the spirits "I may have made mistakes, but that cannot be me. I'm a reasonable man." He was a slave to his own sin, carrying a chain of it around with him wherever he went, even without seeing it. A chain of slavery, which Christ wants to unlock and throw off. And when it was done for Scrooge, he realized fully its existence and was joyful at his recovery.
The devil used free will to destroy us, and God uses free will to bring us back. We have a free will, and if we choose to come back to him, now we can.
Lief Erikson
10-24-2002, 04:50 PM
Well, I realize that the above post is entirely about the real world, not about Tolkien at all. I don't see any Christ dying for our sins in the Silmarillion, although I could be simply missing it. So I think that this answers the problem of good and evil in the Christian religion, and through this I've largely been going from the perspective that this and Tolkien's views in the Sil are the same. If this answers your question for Christianity, please tell me.
If this answers your question for Tolkien, I'd be surprised ;).
Lief Erikson
10-24-2002, 05:02 PM
Okay, this is my view of predestination:
Predestination to people that believe in it is the belief that we don't have any free will, but are God's puppets. That everything is known by God and thereby destined by him. And if everything is destined by him, then we don't have any ability to change it.
This is the view that I have been trying to disprove, by my examples which demonstrate that God can know what is going to happen, and yet this does not go against free will. It wasn't him that decided for you what you were going to do, simply because he knew what your choice would be. He can plan in advance, knowing what people are going to do, and he can use people and events to work his own ends.
Any questions?
Originally posted by R*an
and if I recall correctly, I believe it was stated that NOT all the history was in the music... I'll try to find the reference :) . such fun to quote myself...
This is the passage that I was thinking of, right after Ilúvatar showed the Ainur a vision of the Music : Yet some things there are that they [the Ainur] cannot see, neither alone nor taking counsel together; for to none but himself has Ilúvatar 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.
Originally posted by Tar-Palantir
But if I had to pin-point a theology for Tolkien in middle-earth I would have to classify it as Pelagian. Pelagianism has man as morally neutral with the ability to choose to be either good or evil. In Pelagian thought, man is not corrupt, but corruptible. That sure seems the case in the Sil. I see the characters as corruptible, but not inherently corrupt. Ever notice that there is very little crime in middle-earth?
I've never heard of Pelagianism *runs to check dictionary* and it's actually in my dict! How interesting! So we have a Mr. Pelagius to thank for that one, ok.
Well, just for fun (ie, not at all in an argumentative manner, but for the fun and interest of discussion :) ) I'll say that I disagree, because of what is written in ****drum rolls***** Book 10 of the HoME series - Morgoth's Ring!!!! **cheers of admiration from ardent MRing admirers SGH, Artanis and R*an)** (see aforementioned Athrabeth thread :) ) (just kidding)
Anyway, in the lengthy notes following the Athrabeth Finrod Ah Andreth section, it speaks of a dimly-remembered fall for the race of man, and the consequences in terms of death, etc. Very interesting read. The three of us, however, mostly discussed the Athrabeth proper, which is an incredibly beautiful and moving piece of writing. I hope you have access to it, you would probably find it interesting.
Sister Golden Hair
10-24-2002, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by R*an
and SGH, your example of the car wreck, etc. are more difficult for me to understand. There is no free will involved here on the part of the person who was killed. I'll have to muse on that one awhile... I have some thoughts, but again, they are hard to formulate into sentences that you can type.
Not true. In both examples each person had a choice.
You're absolutely right, SGH - what I meant (and obviously didn't express well at all) was they were not choosing an evil conduct - they made a morally neutral choice (go home this way or that way, etc. vs. I think I will kill someone, but I'm not responsible, because God made me with the ability to consider killing someone). I still had my brain in the "responsibility for choice of evil conduct" line of thinking. Sorry!
markedel
10-24-2002, 07:51 PM
Tolkien does mention man's primieval fall in his introduction to the sil.
Lief Erikson
10-24-2002, 11:53 PM
I know, but we're simply ending up discussing some of these things anyway, even though they aren't Tolkien related, because they are related to the issue.
I still haven't had anyone who believes in predestination respond to my examples. Does anyone out there think that Mike killed Cathy? Besides R*an ;)? Artanis?
Human#3.141592653
10-25-2002, 12:35 AM
But doesn't free will imply the possiblity of randomness?
(And one could go on about what is random is the comsic sceme, but for the sake of this argument, random is defined as not attached to a higher will's choice, be they Godlike or the will of an ameba.(SP?))
Say that you are at a cross roads and you must choice a way. Strait ahead, to the left or right, or back the way that you had come. Or you could stand still. You could also cross into the fields.
For the sake of argument, Eur exists. Then He (or it) would, in his finite knowledge, know all the avible choices. He would know where you could go from there, and once there where you could go from that point, and so and so forth. Every possible choice and choice there after he would know. In his infinite knowledge he would know your character and by previous decidsions, could guess at which one you would take.
And he would probably be right.
But, and here's the kicker, HE WOULD NOT KNOW FOR SURE WHICH ONE YOU WOULD CHOICE UNTIL YOU HAD MADE YOUR CHOICE.
I thought that's how free will worked. If you decided to explode on the spot, or shout out "CHEESE!" for no apperent reason, it's probably not something Eur intended you to do.
My point is simply this: Eur was/is, theoritically, just as in the dark about what is going to happen as all of his little creatures-
if-
and only if-
He truly gave them free will.
Otherwise, it doesn't count.
Lief Erikson
10-25-2002, 02:31 AM
Well, it looks to me as if you don't understand the argument of foreknowledge. It sounds more as though you're describing some extremely mentally powerful alien than a God who knows all ends. Sure, God knows all of the possibilities, just as you say. God knows what you might do, but God also knows what you will do. Knowing what you will do doesn't mean that he made the decision for you. All that it means is that he has more power than you're giving him credit for.
You see, Human pie, God doesn't exist within time as you know it, and very possibly not within any time at all. That is the flaw in your reasoning. He created time as it is in human perspective, and he doesn't have to exist within it. If he doesn't exist within it, than he isn't ruled by it, which means that he doesn't go along with every human, but can see the beginning, middle and end of all things at once. Time is simply another layer of the universe which he created. From the Christian standpoint, that is how he can make prophesies through prophets in the Bible, and that is why he could say when he arose into heaven that he would be coming back 'soon.' Humans back then, from their limited reference point wouldn't call hundreds of years 'soon.'
Artanis
10-25-2002, 05:18 AM
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I still haven't had anyone who believes in predestination respond to my examples. Does anyone out there think that Mike killed Cathy? Besides R*an ;)? Artanis? I had more or less given up posting in this thread (and also the evolution thread, and all the political threads), it is so frustrating not to be able to express myself properly, as I could have done much better if this discussion were held in Norwegian! :p But when I'm named, I can't resist the temptation. OK, here we go:
Of course I don't think that Mike killed Cathy. We all agree about that, don't we? If predestination exist, none of us have any responsibility for our actions, and if it doesn't exist, we are responsible. In neither cases Mike is to blame. But I think predestination might exist for the world (I'm speaking of Tolkien's world now) on a large scale, in the sense that the great lines of history is unfolded as designed by Eru, and still there is room for individual actions on a smaller scale, which is not deviced or foreknown by Eru in advance, but still contributes to Eru's glorious plan. Within this theory every thinking creature are responsible for their actions, which is not foretold or known, and the actions and their consequences may sometimes seem evil, and indeed are on a small scale.
And even if you believe in foreknowledge/predestination in a small scale, I really think you cannot compare Eru to Mike, as Eru is the creator of the world (funny to talk about Eru in connection with humans who have names like Mike and Cathy, not at all Middle-Earthy) and had His knowledge of the killing of Cathy already at the time of creation, because that's how he created it, whereas Mike has to be told by the murderer-to-be.
Right now I don't want to say anything about our own world, which is even more complicated to talk about than ME. Other than that I certainly don't believe in predestination, and I'm not a Christian. But religion and philosophy in general are extremely interesting stuff.
Puuuh .... this is hard work! Now I must return to the work I'm paid to do. :)
Tar-Palantir
10-25-2002, 09:46 AM
I just read about twenty posts, so forgive me if its all a big jumble. There are a couple of things I wish to address.
Someone, I think Lief, defined those who believe in predestination as turning men into robots. This is simply not the case. Here is the classical definition of predectination from the Westminster Confession of Faith:
[I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.]
Notice the three clauses:
1. God is not the author of sin.
2. Violence is not offered to the will of the creatures.
3. The contingency of second causes is not taken away.
What does this mean? It means whatever comes to pass was ordained to come to pass, but done so in a way that does no violence to man's will, neither does it make God responsible for sin, neither does it mean that things are going to happen with or without secondary causes.
God ordains the means as well as the end. If SGH dies in a car accident because she wore no seat-belt, was it her time to go? Yes. Would she have died with the seat-belt on? Probably not. But remember the means are ordained as well as the end. And, yes, she was foolish in not wearing her seat-belt. I will continue to wear mine, thank-you.
God created Satan fully knowing that Satan would do evil. How can an omniscient God learn anything? If God one day realizes that Satan will do evil, when the day before he didn't know it, then we must concede that God is not omniscient. What will happen tomorrow that he didn't know about? A God who learns anything (including the future) is not omniscient.
Tar-Palantir
10-25-2002, 09:52 AM
The difficulty we have in understanding this is we cannot seem to reconcile the idea of predestination and man's will. But notice once again please that in the classical definition of predestination, the two ideas are not in conflict. Predestination does not make men robots. God has decreed whatsoever comes to pass both in man's will and through man's will, not against man's will or in spite of man's will.
This is illustrated many times in the scripture, the most notable case being the crucifixion of Christ. Every single individual who acted in that heinous crime acted freely without any coercion from God. God did not MAKE them do it. They are even held responsible for that act. Fifty days after the fact we hear the words of the Apostle Peter:
"Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: "
Determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God... 'Determinate' means that which determined. God's counsel or God's decree was what determined both the outcome and the means to the outcome.
Again, only a few short days later we read the prayer of the early church to God in which they mention the crucifixion and have this to say:
"For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done. "
What did they do? They did whatever God's hand and God's counsel had determined before to be done. Does this mean they all acted as little robots? No. They all acted freely. Does this seem contradictory? Maybe at first glance, but I think we are not appreciating the majesty and transcendency of God. He is that much higher than his creation. As Tal Bachman might say, "He's so high..... so high above me, He's so lovely..." LOL
Tar-Palantir
10-25-2002, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by R*an
such fun to quote myself...
This is the passage that I was thinking of, right after Ilúvatar showed the Ainur a vision of the Music :
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet some things there are that they [the Ainur] cannot see, neither alone nor taking counsel together; for to none but himself has Ilúvatar 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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps the Ainur didn't know, but Ilúvatar did didn't he? And if they have no foretelling, it is because Ilúvatar didn't tell.
What do you think?
Lief Erikson
10-25-2002, 11:13 AM
Well, we are at a difference of opinion, although I suppose that the difference is immaterial to either of our faith. I don't believe in predestination, that God intended things to be this way, largely because of the existence of evil. He didn't ordain any of the sins, or the fact that some people fall into sin. A God would not preordain a Christian to fall away from him into sin, or are you suggesting that he preordained everything except sin? To me, you still cannot have a loving God, sin, and predestination.
All right, even saying that men are not robots and that they have free will within God's decrees. I notice that within your stated point of view, you didn't mention the existence of evil. To me, if predestination exists, then evil contradicts the idea of a loving God. For what no loving God would ordain something evil, even if there was good in the end. They might, however, permit it. There is a difference between the two.
To me, God knows everything that everyone is going to do with their own free will, and all the choices that they are going to make, from the beginning to the end of history and time. I believe that because of this foreknowledge, he has freedom to work his will. Hence the prophesies, God's sending his son down, and the strange divine references to time in the Bible. Sin entered into the world, and God knew that it would enter, yet he did not stop it because he respected the creatures' involved free choice. But he probably planned before time what to do about this evil action, for in allowing it to happen, he did have responsibility.
I do believe in divine ability to make decisions for the earth, and that God can rule the nations and decide what one does to another. He does this repeatedly during the times of Israel, and simply because we haven't any prophets to say what he's going to do doesn't mean that he has stopped doing it. So yes, in a way I do believe in predestination on a smaller scale, if that is what you call God stretching out his powerful hand and working his wonders upon the earth and its inhabitants.
Tar-Palantir
10-25-2002, 11:32 AM
Lief, [All right, even saying that men are not robots and that they have free will within God's decrees. I notice that within your stated point of view, you didn't mention the existence of evil.]
This is true. But this problem exists for the non-predestinarian also, does it not?
Lief, [To me, if predestination exists, then evil contradicts the idea of a loving God.]
If that is true of predestination, then why is not true of foreknowledge? In both cases, God allowed evil, knowing full well of it before it happened, and having all power to stop it. Yet he did not.
Lief, [For what no loving God would ordain something evil, even if there was good in the end. They might, however, permit it. There is a difference between the two.]
Here is the crux. I don't see a difference. If God permits it, he ordained that it would happen, but in a way that makes him non-culpable.
BTW- it is great to be able to discuss such an emotional issue in a non-volatile way. God bless you.
Lief Erikson
10-25-2002, 02:14 PM
Thank-you.
Ah, now back to predestination :). I think that the reason God permits evil to happen is because to refuse to permit it would be to reject free will. I believe that free will opens up the possibility of evil simply by existing, for otherwise man would not have fallen in the first place. God, I don't think ordained the biting of the apple that he told them not to bite. I think that that was free will. He had the knowledge that they would bite the apple before they bit it, but he also knew that it was their choice to make. It is possible that even before they bit the apple he started working on his plan to redeem humanity and bring it back to itself. Free will is truly what makes us what we are, and although our goal is to have everything we do, speak and think be in tune with God's will, I don't believe that it automatically is. I think, just like you do, that we lost a lot at the Garden of Eden, and Christ dying on the cross was his way of bringing us back. It is possible that he permited sin to exist simply so that we could experience grace, and come to know all the aspects of God, including justice. We wouldn't have to experience justice or grace if we had remained with him as originally planned.
I don't claim to know all the ins and outs of God's purpose, but I think we're both agreed that he knows what is best and is leading us there.
I don't believe in predestination because it means that God did evil, but I think that permitting it is different, because that is allowing us to go our own way and do what we please. Free will was installed in humanity and in angels in the beginning, and it is part of God's plan for us all.
I know that you already agree with most of the theology of this post, but I'm simply trying to explain the difference between evil through free will and evil through God.
Originally posted by markedel
Tolkien does mention man's primieval fall in his introduction to the sil.
I don't seem to have it in my version .. I have a 20-year-old cheapie paperback from Ballantine. I just have a Foreward, and I don't see the reference (but maybe I'm just missing it??)
Anyway, the Morgoth's Ring fall accounts are really interesting, I hope you can read them if you haven't already. Thanks for the info :)
Artanis
10-25-2002, 05:30 PM
markedel, do you mean the foreword written by Christopher Tolkien? My Sil edition is 1998 HarperCollins, and I can't find it either.
from JRRT:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet some things there are that they [the Ainur] cannot see, neither alone nor taking counsel together; for to none but himself has Ilúvatar 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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tar-Palantir
Perhaps the Ainur didn't know, but Ilúvatar did didn't he? And if they have no foretelling, it is because Ilúvatar didn't tell.
What do you think?
Oh, definitely - that was the point of the quote, I thought - the Ainur didn't know all, because they only heard the music, but there was more than the music that Ilúvatar "has in store", and of course, Ilúvatar knew it all.
BTW, does your keyboard work with those special characters?
from the Westminster Confession of Faith (as quoted by Tar-Palantir:
I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.
Wow, I really like that, and for TWO reasons - one is that I happen to agree with it :D , but also - it is written in such a beautiful style! That reminds me of some things in Tolkien's letters, where he talks about the beauty of language:
from letter #163:"It has always been with me: the sensibility to linguistic pattern which affects me emotionally like colour or music;".
And then a rather humorous part, where he is discussing some people that criticized the parts where he wrote more formally (he obviously disagreed and thought the differing language styles were an important part of the storytelling):But take an example from the chapter that you specially singled out (and called terrible): Book iii, 'The King of the Golden Hall'. 'Nay, Gandalf!' said the King. 'You do not know your own skill in healing. It shall not be so. I myself will go to war, to fall in the front of the battle, if it must be. Thus shall I sleep better.' ..... I know well enough what a modern would say. 'Not at all my dear G. You don't know your own skill as a doctor. Things aren't going to be like that. I shall go to the war in person, even if I have to be one of the first casualties'.
What a difference in tone, don't you think?
Artanis, I'm glad you can't find it in your edition either, I was thinking maybe I was just totally brainless and couldn't see it.
Oh, BTW - funny timing - on the way home from school today, my 6 year old asked, out of the blue, if I thought that the devil made Joseph's brothers do the mean things to him that they did (the story in Genesis, where they sell him as a slave, etc). So I answered that I thought that the devil didn't MAKE them do it, but perhaps he put the thought into their heads, but they could have decided that that was a bad choice and chosen not to do it, but because they had already been thinking angry thoughts about Joseph and not trying to fix those angry thoughts, that it made it much easier for them to make that bad choice.
Interesting - is he on Entmoot reading this thread while I'm asleep? :D
MasterMothra
10-25-2002, 11:51 PM
hmmm. interesting.
lets say, for arguments sake, that i was clairvoyant and i knew that a catastrophic event was about to transpire( mass murder or such). i had the power to stop it before it happened, but instead chose to let the chips fall as they may. would i be just as much to blame for my decision not to intervene, or would i be justified in my actions under the "free will" assumption?
MM, I think that perhaps you have just read the last couple of posts. If you read thru all the posts on this thread (quite a few, I know, but it's a pretty complex topic), you'll get a pretty clear idea of what many of us would answer. I feel that I have already answered that one, at least - would you like to take a scan thru my posts (if you haven't already) and get back to me?
MasterMothra
10-26-2002, 12:10 PM
my post was just a general response, rian. it wasnt directed to anyone in particular. i found your posts interesting. this thread has taken a turn toward religeon. my post was to simplify the whole discussion. replace myself with eru and comment truthfully. i think that christians wont want to do this because instead of inserting eru, they will insert god. and they dont want to say that god is responsible in any way because it goes against what they believe. i have no such problem because god is not an issue in my life.
very interesting topic though, nice to read.
Originally posted by MasterMothra
my post was just a general response, rian. it wasnt directed to anyone in particular. i found your posts interesting. this thread has taken a turn toward religeon. my post was to simplify the whole discussion. replace myself with eru and comment truthfully. i think that christians wont want to do this because instead of inserting eru, they will insert god. and they dont want to say that god is responsible in any way because it goes against what they believe. i have no such problem because god is not an issue in my life.
very interesting topic though, nice to read.
Wait, please - I really meant that I think our previous posts addressed your issue. Did you get a chance to read thru them, and if so, do you agree?
Now I would say that it hasn't taken a turn towards "religion" - the thread was originally about a religious issue, although concerning the "religion" of Middle Earth (ie, where there is a Being, Eru, that is a supreme, uncreated being, He created angels, and etc.) In discussing this issue, we have used examples of the Christian religion, and in these examples, I believe that a valid response may be found for the question posed in your initial post.
I'm sorry if you misunderstood me - it's so easy to do on Internet discussion boards, where you can't see my expression or hear the inflection of my voice. I didn't mean to be mean, I really thought there was a valid answer to your question in previous posts. Does that make sense? I would like it very much if you would check the posts and respond. Thanks :)
ps - and I did say that the God of the Christian faith "took responsibility" for creating free will, which allows for the possibility of evil. See if you can find the post :) I have to run off to soccer games now, I'll check back later and look forward to your post.
Sister Golden Hair
10-26-2002, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by MasterMothra
my post was just a general response, rian. it wasnt directed to anyone in particular. i found your posts interesting. this thread has taken a turn toward religeon. my post was to simplify the whole discussion. replace myself with eru and comment truthfully. i think that christians wont want to do this because instead of inserting eru, they will insert god. and they dont want to say that god is responsible in any way because it goes against what they believe. i have no such problem because god is not an issue in my life.
very interesting topic though, nice to read. Well, this thread is not suppose to be nor will it turn into a topic about religion cause then it will be closed. I don't mind allowing a little leverage for off topic discussion as long as it stays within the perimeters of the thread topic which this has done so far.
Lief Erikson
10-28-2002, 08:00 PM
Well then, you'd better close it.
The whole issue in the beginning was predestination. It was labeled as a Silmarillion discussion because it was about Eru and the Silmarillion in the start. The question was about Middle Earth predestination, and since predestination in Middle Earth can so easily be substituted with predestination in real life, it became a hot topic, discussing both Christianity's predestination and Tolkien's, which are both so similar to each other that they are nearly inseparable.
I personally would prefer it greatly if you didn't close it. If you want to move it to General Messages, you can. Your the moderator, so use your best judgement as to which place this topic should be in.
MasterMothra, I think you're making a few mistakes about the Christian religion. Humanity fell at the garden of Eden. Because of free will, he let it fall. He won't make all of our choices for us, and make them right, and neither will he simply make us do the big choices right. He won't force us into anything, but will let us decide for ourselves. Because humanity fell, sin entered into human nature. Therefore, it isn't our nature to do right all the time, as God originally planned it would be.
However, he isn't going to simply let his creation remain in this awful state to which, through its own folly, it has descended to. He let it fall because of free will, but instantly he began planning how to bring it back to him, if he hadn't made the plan already. He sent his son to die on the cross, that we might come to him and have sin removed from our nature, just as it was before. Therefore, although he allows us to commit evil because it would destroy the "us" of us to prevent this evil, he makes provision for us.
The sin that exists is our fault, but God leaves the door open for sin in each person to be wiped away. He is working for a better thing than we have chosen for ourselves.
Well, this is the Christian theology, and I think that it is that that you were addressing. As far as Eru is concerned, predestination to me is pretty much the same: nonexistant. However, one difference between Tolkien and the Bible which someone pointed out earlier on in this thread is this: In Tolkien's world, humanity and the elves never had one enormous fall. We don't see Sam, Frodo, Aragorn, Gimli, or any of the good characters sinning. Therefore in Tolkien's world there was no need for Eru to send his son to die on the cross, everyone was good anyway. Humanity was corruptable, just like it is in the Bible, but it doesn't start out corrupted. Isildur wasn't guilty until he chose to take the Ring for himself, and so on. In Tolkien's world, some people and elves sin and fall from goodness, but they don't start out damned unless they turn to goodness.
Sister Golden Hair
10-28-2002, 08:15 PM
Well then, you'd better close it.
The whole issue in the beginning was predestination. It was labeled as a Silmarillion discussion because it was about Eru and the Silmarillion in the start. The question was about Middle Earth predestination, and since predestination in Middle Earth can so easily be substituted with predestination in real life, it became a hot topic, discussing both Christianity's predestination and Tolkien's, which are both so similar to each other that they are nearly inseparable.
I personally would prefer it greatly if you didn't close it. If you want to move it to General Messages, you can. Your the moderator, so use your best judgement as to which place this topic should be in.Lief, I would prefer not to close it or move it. As long as the discussion stays on a track toward Tolkien and the Silmarillion pertaining to Iluvatar and Morgoth, I see no problem. We can compare these things I think to Christian theology without it being a heated debate. I think we can make comparisons and discuss these comparisons. I don't think anyone in this thread is trying to turn it into a religious debate as much as we are trying to get inside Tolkien's head and see where he was coming from with this. we have talked about how he disliked allegory, but we also know that he was a very religious man and I think his feelings on that subject influenced his writing.
We can keep the debate comparatively. As long as that is done, it belongs in this forum. If the debate becomes a religious war lacking any reference to Tolkien, then the thread will be closed, but I see no need for it to go in that direction.
Artanis
10-29-2002, 07:47 AM
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
However, one difference between Tolkien and the Bible which someone pointed out earlier on in this thread is this: In Tolkien's world, humanity and the elves never had one enormous fall.But I believe they did have a fall. Tolkien actually mentions the fall of Men in his letters. According to the Athrabeth in Morgoth's Ring, Men fell in the Elder days long before the Edain came to Beleriand. Their 'sin' was to turn away from Eru and to start worshipping Morgoth. There was also a second fall, when the Numenoreans began their rebellion against the Valar, aided and encouraged by Sauron. In both occasions Eru took direct action into the world.
The Elves also had a fall, though perhaps on a smaller scale: The rebellion of the Noldor against the Valar while leaving The Undying Lands.
Therefore in Tolkien's world there was no need for Eru to send his son to die on the cross, everyone was good anyway. Humanity was corruptable, just like it is in the Bible, but it doesn't start out corrupted.The whole of Arda was corrupted by Morgoth, resulting in Arda marred. In the Athrabeth it is said that Eru will eventually heal the marring by descending into the world, but still remain outside. Some of the Elves believed Men and Elves would live together in Arda remade, after the end of the world. A very strong parallell to Christianity here, IMO.
Lief Erikson
10-29-2002, 12:46 PM
Well, possibly that is a strong parallel to Christianity. But I don't think that the fall of those men turning to Morgoth or the fall of the Numenoreans were on the scale of man's fall in the Garden of Eden. I said that they were corruptable, didn't I?
When man fell in the Garden of Eden, it infected all of humanity with sin. These individual falls in Middle Earth and Numenor weren't necessarily on the scale of contaminating all of the human race. The guilty were destroyed, while the innocent prevailed, and justice was done.
Sister Golden Hair, that's fine with me if you don't move or close this thread. I personally like it more where it is, anyway.
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Well, possibly that is a strong parallel to Christianity. But I don't think that the fall of those men turning to Morgoth or the fall of the Numenoreans were on the scale of man's fall in the Garden of Eden. I said that they were corruptable, didn't I?
When man fell in the Garden of Eden, it infected all of humanity with sin. These individual falls in Middle Earth and Numenor weren't necessarily on the scale of contaminating all of the human race. The guilty were destroyed, while the innocent prevailed, and justice was done.
Hi, Lief!
Actually, I agree with Artanis here, that the mysterious fall far back in the past did seem to infect all of humanity - it caused a change in the entire nature of humanity - they actually believed that they were immortal in some distant past, and then were changed as the result of some catastrophic event to be afflicted with death. Kind of like the Tree of Life in Genesis - God prevented Adam and Eve from eating from the Tree of Life after they sinned, so that they would not be immortal in a sinful state (at least that's how I understand it). Instead, He allowed death, and then Christ overcame death, etc. I don't know if that makes sense or not, I'm kinda tired and may not be expressing myself well. But check out the Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth section, in the appendicies, and see if you agree. In fact, Tolkien was starting to get frustrated with it, because he thought it was turning into a "parody" of Christianity.
I totally agree about the fall of the Numenoreans, though - that was a sin local to a people group, and not afflicting the human race as a whole.
Lief Erikson
10-29-2002, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by R*an
But check out the Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth section, in the appendicies, and see if you agree. In fact, Tolkien was starting to get frustrated with it, because he thought it was turning into a "parody" of Christianity.
Alas, I don't know quite where to find it. I've looked in my Silmarillion appendices, but it isn't there. In which appendices is it?
Artanis
10-29-2002, 05:40 PM
It's in Morgoth's Ring, HoME vol 10.
Lief Erikson
10-29-2002, 07:19 PM
I don't understand your abreviation. What is HoME?
Lefty Scaevola
10-29-2002, 08:32 PM
History of Middle Earth, the 12 volune set of JRRT's note and drafts edited and annotated by Christopher T to show the development of the The middle earth stories over a period of around 60 years.
If you go to a bookstore, look for "Morgoth's Ring" on the binding - that's what will catch your eye - I didn't even realize at first that it was part of the HoME series. There are quite a few notes, etc. after the Athrabeth proper, and several on the "fall" alone, so be sure to keep looking until you find them all. Good luck! :)
Sister Golden Hair
10-29-2002, 10:11 PM
Yes Lief, do get the HoMe series. You won't regret it.:)
MasterMothra
10-30-2002, 02:31 PM
rian, i have read your posts, finally! sorry it took so long. you have made quite an contribution to the discussion, as have all the other posters. then here comes me and my little posts, hehheeh. i have a different outlook on the "god" of the sil and the "god" in religion. both to me are nothing but characters in great fantasy epics. i do not connect eru with "god" at all, but think of him as the absentee god that he is. eru is to blame for the shortcomings of all his creations, but the blame is not totally his to bear. each race must make decisions that could be conceived as good or evil, and must take that token of responsibility for themselves.(this is what i gathered from rians posts, hope i am correct). now, what happens after these characters perish, is what im interested in.in the books of the bible god punishes his own creations severely for sins that he must take some responsibilty for; not at all a god that i would perceive as loving. as for the sil, it seems that eru may have been more tolerable of things that free will had brought about, good or bad, since he was the creating force behind the ainur. i'm sure someone here has more knowledge than i regarding that subject, so i will present the floor to them now.
Lief Erikson
10-30-2002, 02:54 PM
Thanks for the advice, everyone. I'll try to eventually read the HoME.
MasterMothra, the only responsibility that God must take for the sins of the world is his granting them free will. He could have changed things so that evil never happened, so that Satan never turned to wickedness, so that humanity grew up in perfection, but he didn't. If he had, then we wouldn't have free will, but he gave us the ability to do evil if we wanted to. It was however, in the beginning, not our nature to do evil, just as it wasn't Satan's original nature to do evil. Pride and envy turned him to wickedness, while succumbing to temptation destroyed us.
Preventing us from doing evil would have been to destroy his gift to all of his creations, which is free will. Rather than forcing us onto his own path, he permitted us to go astray, but gave us the ability to come back to him. And since he is righteousness, and those that keep away from him keep away from righteousness and remain in sin, of course he is going to punish evil strongly! But he is just, and he knows the situation of all hearts. And he isn't going to punish the innocent.
As for Eru, I don't think he is responsible for all the wickedness of his creations except in the same way that God is. God created his creations with free will, so did Eru in Tolkien's work. They didn't create evil, but the evil came. Either could have forced all their creations onto the path of righteousness, but each had to much respect for their creations to treat them in such a way. That would have been a forceful and controlling God. It would have been a God who believed in that saying: "The end justifies the means."
Tar-Palantir
10-30-2002, 05:01 PM
One difference between man's death in the Sil and man's death in Christianity is this:
In the Sil, death is the gift of Iluvatar to men.
In the Bible, death is the punishment for sin.
I don't see a universal fall into corruption in Tolkien's universe. I see corruptible creatures, but not corrupted creatures (unless you point out that orcs, trolls, and the like are totally corrupt, which is true). I don't think man is totally fallen in the Sil. Have you ever noticed how little crime there is in middle-earth?
Just a quick post - I probably can't get in a well-thought-out post for a day or two, just not enough free time -
I'm glad you're back, MM! I'll post a response to your post as soon as I can. I basically agree with Lief, and the important thing is, as he said, that God "gave us the ability to come back to Him", but I'll post a reponse in my own words soon to your comments.
Hi again, Tar-Palantir! Did you see my post on the diacritical marks? If so, could you get them to work? And re the death comment, I would recommend to you, too, to look at the Athrabeth section in Morgoth's Ring (check a few posts ago for this topic - the "fall" described there did indeed affect the entire race of mankind) - I really think that death was a "gift" to man in the sense that because of death, they were not forced to live eternally in their corrupted state, but as Christ overcame death, so can we thru Him. (if that makes sense! probably not worded too well, but must start dinner in a few minutes!!)
Artanis
10-31-2002, 04:55 AM
Originally posted by Tar-Palantir
I don't see a universal fall into corruption in Tolkien's universe. I see corruptible creatures, but not corrupted creatures (unless you point out that orcs, trolls, and the like are totally corrupt, which is true). I don't think man is totally fallen in the Sil. Have you ever noticed how little crime there is in middle-earth? I agree that the fall of Men in Tolkien's world was not a universal one. Those Men who came into Beleriand, the Edain, were the faithful ones, they fled from the dark forces that had overcome the Men that stayed behind. The Edain was restored somehow, I don't know the details of this, but I believe they were not punished.
R*an, I agree about the gift of death to Men. Men were not created immortal, and fear and reluctance of death was not natural to them, but came as a result from the influence of Morgoth.
Tar-Palantir
10-31-2002, 10:23 AM
Yes, R*an, I got the characters to work. Thank-you so much. I sometimes need to post something in Spanish on another forum and previously I did not know how to put in the accent marks and tildes. Now I do! Do you know how to do an inverted exclamation point?
Tar-Palantir
10-31-2002, 10:32 AM
MasterMothra writes, [in the books of the bible god punishes his own creations severely for sins that he must take some responsibilty for; not at all a god that i would perceive as loving.]
I hope that you will give me a fair hearing on this one Master M. (grin)
Here's my question for you:
What is it that obligates God to stop a free creature from doing wrong and rebelling against his commands? In other words, when a free creature commits an uncoerced act of evil, how is God responsible for that?
Forgive me for saying so, but you have assumed that God must take some responsibility for sin, without having established that fact.
I say that as long as God rights all wrongs in the end, his righteous character remains unimpeached.
But I am willing to listen.
Lief Erikson
10-31-2002, 11:55 AM
I agree. Someone on the evolution thread in General Messages sent in the same question, and I was trying to tell him that hell is about justice. We don't know a whole lot about hell from the Bible, but we do know that God is just. God isn't required to force his creatures to accept his mercy, as you say.
Originally posted by Tar-Palantir
Yes, R*an, I got the characters to work. Thank-you so much. I sometimes need to post something in Spanish on another forum and previously I did not know how to put in the accent marks and tildes. Now I do! Do you know how to do an inverted exclamation point?
No, I don't - sorry :( Maybe someone on the other forum can tell you that one.
MasterMothra
10-31-2002, 10:32 PM
well, if there is a god, and in my humble opinion there is not, then his responsibility only exists in the fact that it was he who created and delived us into this world. adam and eve were doomed to fail in the instant that god made the garden of eden and allowed satan to coexist with the two. call it "free will" if you must, but i call it entrapment. adam and eve were innocent and ignorant in the beginning and did what any "child" would do when presented with satans offer. if i put a cookie jar in the kitchen, but tell my kids not to open it, it would be unreasonable to think they would not, since curiosity is something that is natural. now give the cookies in the jar the ability to "talk" to the children, and coerse them into thinking it was ok to eat of the jar. would you be surprised if the children disobeyed you? then you not only curse the children, but also all of their offspring forever. hmmmm, what a kind and loving god that is. all god had to do was not allow satan and the tree of knowledge to exist and all of this would have been avoided. its like leaving a loaded gun within the reaches of your beloved children and then blaming them for the repercussions. of couse i only think of the bible in the same context as the silmarillion; a good read that is entertaining at most. it is not my intention to dissuede anyones beliefs. these are solely my interpretations.
(see next post - had problems with editor on this one)
OK, MM, I've got some time to address your comments/questions. I usually edit the posts for awhile because I refer back to other posts - I'll post an "all done" message when my post is complete, ok?
Originally posted by MasterMothra
well, if there is a god, and in my humble opinion there is not, then his responsibility only exists in the fact that it was he who created and delived us into this world.
What do you think of my response of 10/24, 1:11 pm that addresses this? (pg 3, near the bottom)
adam and eve were doomed to fail in the instant that god made the garden of eden and allowed satan to coexist with the two. call it "free will" if you must, but i call it entrapment.
I disagree. Although I think that there was the possibility of their disobedience (which is really the proper term here), it was not an absolute given. The whole free will thing, with its possibility of choosing evil, or else free will would be meaningless, is discussed in several posts such as mine of 10/21, 4:50 pm, Lief's of 10/21, 10:35 pm, mine of 10-22, 9:31 am and Lief's of 10/22, 1:20 pm. What do you think of those posts?
adam and eve were innocent and ignorant in the beginning and did what any "child" would do when presented with satans offer. if i put a cookie jar in the kitchen, but tell my kids not to open it, it would be unreasonable to think they would not, since curiosity is something that is natural. now give the cookies in the jar the ability to "talk" to the children, and coerse them into thinking it was ok to eat of the jar. would you be surprised if the children disobeyed you? then you not only curse the children, but also all of their offspring forever. hmmmm, what a kind and loving god that is. all god had to do was not allow satan and the tree of knowledge to exist and all of this would have been avoided. its like leaving a loaded gun within the reaches of your beloved children and then blaming them for the repercussions.
Re innocent - do you mean that they did not know that it was wrong? Re ignorant - no, they were instructed by God to not take the fruit. Now if God did something like this - "ok, I'm gonna zap them if they eat this one fruit - I won't tell them, but I'll really zap them if they do!" - that would be another thing. In fact, that would be an impossible thing, given God's character.
One thing that you do not take into consideration is that before their fall, they did not have a sin nature - I believe that their natural tendency was to obey, in a right and proper creation-to-creator relationship, and it was a joyful thing. We can even see that here in this fallen world - a good child is pleased to obey the loving and reasonable request of loving parents, and the parents are pleased with his obedience. Now our instructions for our children are for their good. But paradise is already good, and so are Adam and Eve. How can they show their love to their creator? How about obedience to a simple request that does them absolutely no harm to obey?
So although curiosity may be natural, as you said, I believe that obedience was also natural. And that is why what seems to us, in this fallen world and with our sin natures, like a simple little error on their part is such a big thing - they have the entire WORLD, except fruit from one tree, and a close relationship with God, and they are free from sin nature.
One interesting thing that shows that they know that they are NOT innocent is their response when God asks them what happened (He knew, of course, but it is just like when I ask my child what happened, when I KNOW what happened, because I want to see how he will deal with it - whether he is honest or deceitful about it, etc). Anyway, when God asks them, they DO NOT SAY "Oh my goodness, I'm SO sorry, I really had NO idea that you did not want us to do that! Please forgive me!" No, Adam says it's not his fault (which implies that he knew it was wrong), it's Eve's fault, and Eve, a quick learner :) follows his example and says that it's Satan's fault.
OK - done editing!
MasterMothra
11-03-2002, 11:37 AM
if you mean the reference to jesus' involvement, then i have to dissagree. i have yet to understand why "god" allowed his son to be murdered and what it had to do with "cleansing" our sins. if a parent in todays society allowed their children to be murdered, they would be sent to jail. they are interesting though.
adam and eve were innocent until they ate from the tree. i guess god did not want his children to have "knowledge". he wanted to keep them dumb, so they would not question the almighty. slave owners did the same thing to their slaves in the old south.
eru was a more loving and understanding god, than the one portrayed in the bible. he did not unjustly punish his children for their mistakes. i dont remember tolkien saying that feanor went to hell for what he did, or sauron for that matter. they were all his creatures and he loved them.
Lief Erikson
11-03-2002, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by MasterMothra
adam and eve were innocent until they ate from the tree. i guess god did not want his children to have "knowledge". he wanted to keep them dumb, so they would not question the almighty. slave owners did the same thing to their slaves in the old south.
Keeping them dumb so that they won't question the Almighty . . . That doesn't sound like the God I know. He is constantly seeking to help people to come into more truth, not to hide it from them and keep them dumb. Humans are blinded by ignorance and held in the chains of sin. Christ unlocks the chains and unveils the eyes of a person. When this happens, then they can really start to see in a way they never had been able to before, and truth of the spiritual realm is revealed. Then the walk with God begins, in which he leads them into greater truth, holiness and faith.
The tree contained the knowledge of good and evil. They still were unacquainted with evil, and that was as God intended it to be. His creations were originally pure, and were intended to remain in this purity. They fell, however, by their own action, and by succumbing to temptation. The devil lead them into knowledge of evil to bind humanity in ignorance of God.
Originally posted by MasterMothra
if you mean the reference to jesus' involvement, then i have to dissagree. i have yet to understand why "god" allowed his son to be murdered and what it had to do with "cleansing" our sins. if a parent in todays society allowed their children to be murdered, they would be sent to jail. they are interesting though.
One important thing to note is the Jesus is one of the Trinity. He was one with God, just as the Holy Spirit is, except possibly (And this can be debated) more so. He claimed in the New Testament that he only says what he hears from the Father, therefore his words are the words of God. God loved the world and the people in it in an unfathomable and deep love, and it was because of this that he sent (Note this, sent, not allowed) his son to be murdered. Just as through Adam and Eve all humanity was contaminated with evil, so through one man, Jesus, evil was defeated.
Originally posted by MasterMothra
eru was a more loving and understanding god, than the one portrayed in the bible. he did not unjustly punish his children for their mistakes. i dont remember tolkien saying that feanor went to hell for what he did, or sauron for that matter. they were all his creatures and he loved them.
Tolkien never said what happened after death to Ilúvatar's creations. And I personally think that if he didn't punish Feanor, or Sauron especially for their actions, he would be far less good of a God then the one Christians serve. Our God is a God of justice. He doesn't make people do evil. They do evil because evil entered into their nature, something that they did against God's will. And when they did evil, because he was a good God, he opened up an avenue through which they can come back to him. This was sending his own son to die for us. God loves far more deeply than humans do, and thus it can be assumed that he loves his son more deeply than humans love their children. The crucifixion hurt him deeply, but it was necessary for the saving of his children. The exact technical spiritual method by which the crucifixion defeated sin isn't currently known to us. But by sending down his son from heaven to die to save us from our sins, this displays an extremely deep love for humanity and it shows his mercy. Rather than letting us condemn ourselves and live with no chance of righteousness, trapped in the devil's clutches, he opened the door to him, which was Jesus. When one accepts Jesus into their heart, he frees the person from ignorance and sin.
If, however, people refuse to accept Jesus into their hearts and thereby refuse to accept God's mercy, then they are punished for their own actions. Their own actions, not God's. If God didn't punish unrepentant evil and show justice, I don't think that he'd be a God I'd care as much to serve.
MasterMothra
11-03-2002, 09:08 PM
from this i gather that the jews and muslims will suffer eternal damnation in hell, since they dont accept jesus as the son of god,
only as a prophet of his word?
as for sauron and feanor's punishment, i guess it wasnt that important to tolkien since he didnt mention it.
Lief Erikson
11-04-2002, 02:27 AM
Originally posted by MasterMothra
from this i gather that the jews and muslims will suffer eternal damnation in hell, since they dont accept jesus as the son of god,
only as a prophet of his word?
All I can say is what I said in my last post. If God wasn't just, I don't think I'd care to serve him. He knows what is within a human heart, and he can understand us. Sin is punished if one doesn't accept mercy. Whether there are different levels of pain that one endures, or whether there is a second chance once there, I don't know. That is all up to God, but I know that he is just, and I doubt that those people who don't accept Jesus as their savior will be going straight to heaven. God might give them a second chance after death if he feels it is right, I simply don't know how he decides what's to be done with each human heart. But I know that he does it with justice.
Originally posted by MasterMothra
as for sauron and feanor's punishment, i guess it wasnt that important to tolkien since he didnt mention it.
I think Tolkien probably thought about it. I don't know whether he ever came up with an answer in his own mind, but it wasn't important to his story, so he didn't include it in the Silmarillion.
Andúril
11-04-2002, 07:38 AM
Not getting involved in this one, thanks.
Lief Erikson
11-04-2002, 10:53 AM
:D
OK, MasterMothra, let me address the "murder" issue from your next-to-last post and the "hell" issue from your last post, now that I have a bit of quiet time.
re murder : no, it was not in any way murder. Please remember some of the things that Jesus did - in addition to the healings, raising Lazarus from the dead, etc., several times he was surrounded by hoards of angry people that wanted to kill Him and He just quietly walked away (a pretty amazing miracle!). In the garden of Gethsemene, when He allowed himself to be captured, at one point He spoke and the people fell to the ground. He could have easily escaped, but the whole point was to go thru with giving up His life for us. In fact, the Bible even says when Jesus was on the cross and had fulfilled the last prophecy by drinking the soured wine, that He "gave up His spirit" - in other words, He didn't just die, it was a voluntary death of His choosing at the right time. The Bible also refers to the fact that Jesus had hosts of angels at his call that could have come to His aid, but He didn't call them, because that would have defeated the purpose. So "murder" is a totally inappropriate word. Now please don't argue my point by saying "how do we know that He did all those miracles?", because that isn't the point here - you said how could God let His Son be murdered, and I am explaining to you the Biblical viewpoint - God did NOT "let His Son be murdered".
and re hell: your quote:
from this i gather that the jews and muslims will suffer eternal damnation in hell, since they dont accept jesus as the son of god, only as a prophet of his word?
The quick (and correct) answer is that God is just, as Lief said, and He clearly states that it is His will (ie, his desire) that all be saved, although it is our choice because of the free will that He has given us, and that we shall have no excuse because He will have clearly presented everything we need to make the choice for Him. He also clearly states that we are saved through Jesus.
Now I think that unfortunately some Christians have gotten a little legalistic and oversimplified things - you've probably met some - those that say, basically, you have to say this little prayer in these words to become a Christian. However, I firmly believe that the truth is not that simple; it usually isn't, especially when you're talking about things of God (which makes sense, because to put it simply, He is WAY smarter than us!!)
You see, Abraham, who is called the Father of our Faith, was referred to in the Bible as having been made righteous by his faith. Now as Christians, we are "made righteous" by our faith in Jesus. But Abraham was born WAY BEFORE Jesus!! So how could he have been saved when he didn't even know who Jesus was? The answer is thru his faith, and "through Jesus" in some way that we don't fully understand. The God described in the Bible is NOT unjust! He won't say, "sorry, I guess you missed the announcement when you fell asleep - now go to hell!" Again, His desire is that all are saved, and He presents information to us so that we CAN make a decision for Him, but in the end He will let our free will choice stand.
And finally, since this is getting so long, just a quick note about what hell and heaven are. So many people think heaven is a lovely little place where happy little people have lots of fun things to do, and hell is the awful place where a crabby and unjust God sends people to when He is mad with them. Well, the extrememly short version is: heaven is where God is, and hell is where God is NOT. Heaven is a glorious place where God reigns, as is completely right! And His people will fall on their faces and worship Him in amazing joy! God does not "send people to hell" kicking and screaming; on the contrary, He tries everything to get them to heaven, even kicking and screaming, but there is a point where it is so obvious that a final decision has been made, and the person does not want to have anything to do with heaven (which is where God reigns in majesty), that God, with great sorrow, says to them "YOUR will be done" - and the only alternative to heaven is hell.
This was bugging me last night so let me make a comment on a phrase that I had used. I won't edit it out, because people have probably already seen it, but I will explain it instead.
When I said : "And His people will fall on their faces and worship Him in amazing joy!" - that's really rather a Biblical-type phrase that only Christians would really understand. What I was trying to show is that the reaction of a Christian to God would be, among other things, joyful and reverential at the same time. Think of if you were a budding physics student and your professor said "class, we have a guest speaker today - Albert Einstein!" - you would have a great feeling of reverence and awe. It's like that, only multiplied greatly. And think of if you were told that someone that you greatly loved was dead - and then there's a knock at the door and there they are! Just a small picture of the joy and love that Christians would feel in God's presence.
Anyway, hope that answered your questions, MM. And to get back to the thread - No, Iluvatar did NOT create Melkor evil. However, he DID create him in the first place, so obviously he thought it was the right thing to do, even with the possible tragic consequences, for free will could be no other way.
Sister Golden Hair
11-06-2002, 12:40 PM
No, Iluvatar did NOT create Melkor evil. However, he DID create him in the first place, so obviously he thought it was the right thing to do, even with the possible tragic consequences, for free will could be no other way.I agree with this and also Iluvatar made him to be the most powerfull of the Valar. I think that invites another aspect for his evilness. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. This would show Melkor to be incapable of using his free will in any manner of good, but only to achieve more power and domination.
Lief Erikson
11-06-2002, 12:55 PM
Where does it say that Melkor was the most powerful of the Valar?
I do agree with you that he was corrupted because of his great power, though. He was filled with envy and pride, and thought that he should be ruler.
Sister Golden Hair
11-06-2002, 09:42 PM
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Where does it say that Melkor was the most powerful of the Valar?
I do agree with you that he was corrupted because of his great power, though. He was filled with envy and pride, and thought that he should be ruler. After grabbing my Sil and looking up the reference that inspired my previous post, I see that I remembered the word wrong. It was not power, but might. In some ways I guess that can be associated in the same way though. Here is the quote from the Silmarillion.
Then hate overcame Feanor's fear, and he cursed Melkor and bade him be gone, saying: "Get thee gone from my gate, thou jail-crow of Mandos!" And he shut the doors of his house in the face of the mightiest of all the dwellers in Ea.Also
Manwe and Melkor were brethren in the thought of Iluvatar. The mightiest of those Ainur who came into the World was in his beginning Melkor, but Manwe is dearest to Iluvatar and understands most clearly his purposes.
Lief Erikson
11-06-2002, 10:59 PM
In this instance, I do take might and power the same way. Thanks for the quote!
Artanis
11-07-2002, 04:45 AM
It is said at least once in Ainulindale that Melkor was made more powerful and with greater knowledge than all the other Ainur. I'll bring you the quote when I get home today.
So, why did Melkor turn to evil? Shouldn't he rather be grateful for his supreme power and knowledge compared to his brethren? I think a possible explanation is this: He saw the might of Iluvatar and wanted to be like him, to have the power to create things at his own will. A natural desire, I think, given his great power, as it would seem to him that his power was almost like the power of Iluvatar.
MasterMothra
11-07-2002, 09:36 AM
artanis is correct. melkor searched relentlessly for the flame imperishable, the ability to create. he was given the most power by eru. the question here is why? it is ridiculus to think that eru did not know what the future held for melkor, that should be obviously clear. evil and darkness were in illuvatar's plan from the beginning.
"and thou, melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. for he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined."
from the beginning, it was all illuvatars plan, every part of it, good and evil. it was part of his plan, and none would understand it until illuvatar was ready.
"Illuvatar said," 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."
"which it may seem that he himself devised or added",
the ainur only perceived that they actually wrote a part of the theme, but it was always eru's plan.
"no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite."
even though melkor thought his music was his creation, it was never so. it was eru's music, his vision, that was sung through melkor.
the perception of free will is a theme that is played throughout the story. there was no music that had not a source in eru,
"for he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined."
the music of the ainur contained more than just the creation of arda. it contained the coming of the elves and of men. it contained the flight of the noldor, the defeat of sauron in the 3rd age. the music did not stop once the conception of arda began. the music contained the whole history of arda from the beginning of the music, until the last age. this was all devised by eru, not even the ainur could perceive all his thoughts and plans; eru said it himself. the "evil" in arda was just as important as the "good", both had thier source in eru, and both were part of things more wonderful than any could imagine.
Lief Erikson
11-07-2002, 11:13 AM
I think you are wrong in saying that everything that has happened was a part of Ilúvatar's plan. If it was, why did he punish the Numenoreans? It rescinds the idea of justice, to think that. Evil was made an option because of free will, and Ilúvatar knew that some of his creations would follow this. It wasn't his responsibility to cut off all evil from the beginning, although I agree with you that once evil happened, he could use it to his greater purposes and turn it to good.
And to Artanis: I don't think that Melkor simply wanted to create creatures as well. All throughout the Silmarillion, his intentions and goals are evil, wicked and intelligent. In he beginning as well, he attempted to sing his own theme. And that theme was a discordant thing with the perfect and beautiful music of Ilúvatar. He wanted power for himself.
My opinion is that Melkor's first sins, after being elevated to such a high status, were pride and envy. He wanted the power that Ilúvatar had. When one is given a taste of power, sometimes one developes a lust for more, and his power was greater than any other's save Ilúvatar alone. He didn't want to be underneath anyone, and he was jealous of Manwë. If his goals had been honorable and natural in the beginning, he wouldn't have so swiftly turned to evil. No, his evil began beforehand, and it wasn't all through bitterness.
MasterMothra
11-07-2002, 11:44 AM
sorry if my opinion does not suit your way of thinking. why is the question of all questions, is it not? why did eru create arda? why the valar? where we differ on illuvatars role has a lot to do with whether we can keep the sil from becoming the bible. i do not read the sil and use the bible to influence my thoughts on why things occured. all i have to go on is what is presented in the text. in the text it says that the music was rooted in eru's thought.
"and thou, melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. for he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined."
its not that hard to comprehend if you free yourself from your christian influence for just a moment.
Sister Golden Hair
11-07-2002, 12:10 PM
As I said awhile back, we won't let this turn into a religious debate. MM, I can see that you feel quite strongly about what you are saying, but let's not get too carried away or upset.
You know I was thinking last night how Manwe and Melkor remind me of Data and Lore in Star Trek N.G. And Dr. Nunion Sunge (sp) is Iluvatar.
Artanis
11-07-2002, 02:46 PM
From Ainulindale:
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 Beings 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.
Lief, I think Melkor started out with no evil purposes, but when he didn't find the Flame, and realized that he was not able to create things by himself, but would always be the instrument of Iluvatar, then Melkor was filled with shame, of which came secret anger.And thus evil came to be.
MM, I like what you say about interpretation of the text due to our own personal beliefs. We prefer Iluvatar to be good, in the sense we think is good. It is sometimes difficult to keep an objective distance. But we should remember that ME is not our world, and none of us are Iluvatar, and we don't know his mind and his plans.
MasterMothra
11-07-2002, 03:49 PM
"But we should remember that ME is not our world, and none of us are Iluvatar, and we don't know his mind and his plans."
my point exactly! all we do know is that everything is part of eru's master plan.
i dont think of eru in the sil as good or evil, i see him presenting both extremes of the spectrum. if everything was always "good" it would be taken for granted, but throw in some rain and it makes the sunny days that much brighter.
Lief Erikson
11-07-2002, 09:25 PM
Well, I do see Ilúvatar as good, and that's what gets in my way, I suppose. Because what you all are suggesting is that "The ends justify the means," is the perspective being used in The Silmarillion.
That presents to me a contradiction as well, for the characters in The Lord of the Rings don't go by that rule. What is good and right is what they follow. You notice, instead of leaving Boromir stuck full of arrows, Legolas, Gimli and Aragorn took the time to decently and honorably bury him at see. Aragorn even sang a song at his funeral. They did it with respect, instead of simply haring off after Frodo and Sam or Merry and Pippin.
And it therefore seems very odd to me that the characters in The Lord of the Rings are better than the God in the Sil.
MasterMothra
11-09-2002, 10:51 AM
well, i dont think anyone here has any grand illusions that eru has competition in the "greatness" department. everything is part of eru's vision, whether it be good or bad. they all play a part and in the end everything works out. gollum was surely an evil creature, but he contributed to downfall of sauron, and that was a good thing, eh? bilbo, gandalf and frodo let gollum live and play out his role, be it for good or bad. did their means justify the end?
Lief Erikson
11-09-2002, 12:06 PM
There's a difference. They were tempering justice with mercy, and they didn't know whether Gollum would do evil or good.
What you're suggesting, of Ilúvatar using evil and good for his own purposes, and not being good himself, means that you're accepting (In Tolkien's world) the idea that the means justify the end, and that Ilúvatar created things better then himself (Whether he's in competition with them or not).
To me, the first statement is incompatible with things shown in The Lord of the Rings, and is definitely NOT a running theme throughout his material. The second statement also I see as ridiculous, and the simple fact that in an act of justice he wiped out the Numenoreans shows that he doesn't use evil and good and everything that everyone does as a part of his plan. On the contrary, he's taking sides with good over evil.
MasterMothra
11-09-2002, 01:33 PM
first, i never said that the beings eru created were better than him. that is ridiculus. why does eru have to be like the god in the bible? maybe he isnt. if free will is the assumption, then why did he intervene with the numinorians? men were never a threat to the might of the valar. maybe the means do justify the ends sometimes.
Lief Erikson
11-09-2002, 04:25 PM
People who have free will don't necessarily have the ability to go unpunished for their actions. Ilúvatar allowed the Numenoreans to go their own way, permitting them to turn to evil because to stop them would have been to end their free will. He accepted what they had chosen to become, but he punished them for it in an act of justice.
This act is similar to other prevailing themes that are visible in The Lord of the Rings and the Silmarillion. In the Silmarillion, the Noldor turn away from the Blessed Realms in a wrongheaded and rebellious act. Consequently, they are punished severely for their act of free will. They have a worse time of it then anyone else, fighting in a no-win situation against Morgoth until they were finally defeated. And, just as in the Bible, (When the Israelites cried out for God to save them from their oppressors) the Valar came to come and help them in power and destroyed their enemies.
There are similarities between the Bible and the Silmarillion, and parallel themes and plot lines in places. You don't have to accept the similarities with the Bible to read the Silmarillion, and I know that there are some differences. But I think that the themes of the Silmarillion has a strong emphasis on punishment for evil and eventual upholding of the righteous. Ilúvatar consistently is against evil, and when Melkor turns to evil, his is the only discordant note in Ilúvatar's song.
And then in The Lord of the Rings, Gandalf says that Frodo was meant to have the ring, just as Bilbo was meant to have it. There was a higher authority at work, and in giving the Ring to Bilbo it did something that the Ring didn't intend. This higher authority could work through the most unlikely creatures imaginable, the weakest, yet they were also humble, and through the small person great and good things can be done. Ilúvatar's hand is evident in the world of The Lord of the Rings; on this and a few other occasions it is discussed directly. And his hand is always working for good, and for judgement of evil. Judgement of evil is a prevailing theme, and it isn't one that you'd find if Ilúvatar wasn't good or evil himself.
Things about Ilúvatar's nature can be discerned also from his creations. All that he created was beautiful and fair, and all that his loyal servants, the Valar created was beautiful and fair. Morgoth rebelled, and all that he created was wicked and twisted. Ilúvatar didn't create Melkor evil, but he can turn evil to good and he commands all things for right.
Originally posted by MasterMothra
well, i dont think anyone here has any grand illusions that eru has competition in the "greatness" department. everything is part of eru's vision, whether it be good or bad. they all play a part and in the end everything works out. gollum was surely an evil creature, but he contributed to downfall of sauron, and that was a good thing, eh? bilbo, gandalf and frodo let gollum live and play out his role, be it for good or bad. did their means justify the end?
Do you have Letters of JRR Tolkien? One of his letters addresses the whole letting Gollum live thing and his thoughts behind it. It was a fascinating letter, but I can't get it now because I have a terrible cold and I'm just doing a quick check-in here. If you have letters, see if you can find it, or I'll find it in a day or two.
MasterMothra
11-09-2002, 11:56 PM
my resistance is futile, you are right, :)
arg! i am an elven warrior, what devilry is this?
the irony is overwhelming.
Sister Golden Hair
11-10-2002, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by MasterMothra
my resistance is futile, you are right, :)
arg! i am an elven warrior, what devilry is this?
the irony is overwhelming. When you reach 500 posts, you may change it to what ever evil title you like.:D
Lief Erikson
11-10-2002, 04:05 PM
Hmm, I'm over 500 posts. How do you change your title?
Sister Golden Hair
11-14-2002, 09:05 PM
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Hmm, I'm over 500 posts. How do you change your title? Oops! Sorry I took so long to answer Lief. Just let me know what you want your title to be, and I will wave my majic wand and change it for you.
Wayfarer
11-16-2002, 01:56 AM
*AHEM*
Although it's a little late, I think there's something I should add to your discussion.
I've noticed posts mentioning 'punishment' ofr the excercise of free will. This is an error. In fact, I think that the whole idea of retribution as such is severely flawed. What you must bear in mind is that the negative consequence is not there to enforce the rule, the rule is there to prevent the negative consequence.
Rule: Don't play in the street.
Reason: You might get hit by a car.
Now... does anyone want to argue that cars are there to keep children from playing in the streets? It's ridiculous!
The evil consequences are not the result of some agency working to enforce The Rules, but of the evil actions which the rules are set in place to prevent.
Look at melkor: The deeper he fell, the more he was consumeed by his own evil, and the more hateful and miserable he became. This was not a punishment for his rebellion against illuvatar, it was a consequence of it. Because all of creation is made to work in a certain way, and to seek otherwise is corruption.
I think this is what he means when he says 'everyone shall know their part'-each being will understand exactly what he is supposed to do, and that it is the best way.
Ñólendil
11-16-2002, 04:30 AM
Well said my friend, and unusually sufferable. I think you're losing your touch! :D
Lief Erikson
11-16-2002, 12:04 PM
Look at melkor: The deeper he fell, the more he was consumeed by his own evil, and the more hateful and miserable he became. This was not a punishment for his rebellion against illuvatar, it was a consequence of it. Because all of creation is made to work in a certain way, and to seek otherwise is corruption.
I agree with you about Melkor, but there is justice and punishment by Ilúvatar in Middle Earth. I'll use Numenor as an example. The sinking of their home was a deliberate act by Ilúvatar to punish them for their sin.
Sure, the don't run out on the street, and look both ways before going situation works in some cases, but there are others where it doesn't. Take murder, for example. Laws against it are not for the good of the would be murderer, they're for the good of the victim. And if the law is broken, then there is a price to be paid.
Now... does anyone want to argue that cars are there to keep children from playing in the streets? It's ridiculous!
In your example it is ridiculous, but plenty of other examples can be shown which demonstrate (I think more accurately) the reality of the situation that is going on.
Wayfarer
11-16-2002, 02:01 PM
I wonder if you understand the situation with ar-pharazon, because it was certainly not retribution. Let's recap:
Ar pharazon decides to invade and conqueor valinor.
He assembles the largest army ever seen.
He sets sail.
He lands on valinor.
The valar call upon eru.
Eru destroys ar-pharazon's army, and breaks the world so that noone else can follow him.
Now I think it is clear that this is not an instance of punishment so much as of defense. The valar do not want to fight, so the call on eru. Eru buries the army, and splits the earth to prevent future attacks.
It should be noted that the valar's own defense mechanisms were far less humane-the shadowy isles cast a spell of sleep on mortal men, and hte sea was treacherous enough that most would have died before then. Eru simple rendered the incursion possible.
What happened to the numenoreans is a pretty clear cut example of morgoth's corruption: They accepted sauron's teachings, and began the slow decline which led to thier ultimate destruction. Notice that the faithful, who were not corrupteed, survived.
It is rather like a shakespearean tragedy-the catastrophe is a nescessary result from the choices that are made.
the fact is that when any party acts in the correct way, they are better off.
Artanis
11-16-2002, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by Wayfarer
Eru destroys ar-pharazon's army, and breaks the world so that noone else can follow him.
Now I think it is clear that this is not an instance of punishment so much as of defense. The valar do not want to fight, so the call on eru. Eru buries the army, and splits the earth to prevent future attacks. The drowning of Numenor was not necessary to prevent future attacks. It would be sufficient to remove Valinor from the world. So why destroy Numenor? Perhaps the intention wasn't to punish the Numenoreans, but to set Sauron back, gaining time enough for Elves and Men to form the Last Alliance against him.
Lief Erikson
11-17-2002, 02:03 AM
I agree, Artanis.
Ar pharazon decides to invade and conqueor valinor.
He assembles the largest army ever seen.
He sets sail.
He lands on valinor.
The valar call upon eru.
Eru destroys ar-pharazon's army, and breaks the world so that noone else can follow him.
Now I think it is clear that this is not an instance of punishment so much as of defense. The valar do not want to fight, so the call on eru. Eru buries the army, and splits the earth to prevent future attacks.
I never said anything against Ilúvatar's defending his own, and I agree that choosing the wrong course brings about eventual ruin for the one who does it, in Tolkien's works.
However, you cannot eliminate from the equation the necessary variable of punishment. The Numenoreans were punished for their pride and wickedness, and Ar-Pharazon for coming up against Ilúvatar's own. The good who do what is right are those that are eventually upheld and brought out on the top, however long evil is allowed to endure (Free will), it still ends up being defeated. And it is because of Ilúvatar's character. Ilúvatar's character is righteous and doesn't tolerate evil. He allows it because to prevent it would demolish free will, which is a great and beautiful gift. But if someone chooses the course of evil, they have to be willing to take the consequences. Sometimes Ilúvatar uses others to bring about his final judgement. From the small (Frodo) to the great (The Valar's attack on Morgoth in the War of Wrath), Ilúvatar consistantly is against evil and punishes it.
Your opinions are sound, Wayfarer, and you are right in noting that there are consequences for evil. But the punishment aspect is strong in this as well, and is the reason why there are consequences for evil. If there were no punishment, there would be no cars to slam into the child that walks out onto the road.
MasterMothra
11-17-2002, 04:33 PM
what does evil enduring have to do with free will? you can have free will without allowing evil, evil is something that eru, or god for that matter, allows to exist.
in "heaven" there is free will without evil. if god allows this in heaven, then why not on earth? the reason why is that he allows it, it has nothing to do with free will.
Lief Erikson
11-17-2002, 05:08 PM
Actually, Satan was in heaven but he turned to evil. God didn't forbid it there either. But born again believer walked loyally with God throughout his or her life before coming to heaven, and God rooted out the evil in that believer. The old nature God tears out by the roots, and replaces with a new nature, which is holy and perfect. Thus, Jesus came down to Earth to fulfill the law. He fulfills the law by making the law something that it is our nature to abide by. Our nature isn't sin anymore (Though we still are human and prone to error), and God forgives the sin that we do commit. Those who are saved are loyal warriors for God, and he knows the human heart. No evil is allowed in heaven and probably none will be done there, as everyone who would do evil doesn't have God in their hearts, and wouldn't have been allwed their in the first place. So everyone is sorted out on the Day of Judgement, and no evil is likely to happen there, even though I think it could happen there.
Satan fell "like lightning from heaven," punished for his complete and utter evil with eternal damnation. We have the ability to do evil, as a part of complete free will, both in heaven and on Earth.
These opinions largely are maintainable as regards Tolkien's world as well. Ilúvatar, by allowing evil grants all creatures complete free will, and free will is a beautiful and wonderful gift. Taking some of it away would be to diminish his creations by making it not complete free will. But wouldn't everyone be happier without this complete free will? Maybe, but Ilúvatar/God knows best. The afterlife in the Silmarillion is less revealed I think than the one in the Bible, but I think that the resistance of temptation's evils and the steadfast striving for righteousness (In the Silmarillion) is something that is rewarded and proves the mettle of the heart. Therefore Ilúvatar can accept those who truly are good, and doesn't simply "make," by an act of power everyone good.
We aren't God, and don't know his full design in permitting evil to exist. However, simply because from our own limited perspectives we cannot see his design, we cannot judge his character. We can say that this is what we would do if we were God, but we cannot judge him only from what we see and hear, since our perspective is so limited.
One way that you can broaden your perspective is by seeking him and finding out for yourself whether God truly exists or not. By asking him to reveal himself to you (and not giving way to your imagination, but truly waiting for a definite response) can you begin to understand him. And then coming to know him better will follow through the walk with him that will progress, and he will answer your questions.
Sister Golden Hair
11-17-2002, 05:40 PM
We aren't God, and don't know his full design in permitting evil to exist. However, simply because from our own limited perspectives we cannot see his design, we cannot judge his character. We can say that this is what we would do if we were God, but we cannot judge him only from what we see and hear, since our perspective is so limited.
One way that you can broaden your perspective is by seeking him and finding out for yourself whether God truly exists or not. By asking him to reveal himself to you (and not giving way to your imagination, but truly waiting for a definite response) can you begin to understand him. And then coming to know him better will follow through the walk with him that will progress, and he will answer your questions.Please keep your religious veiws in check. Stay on topic, and don't preach religion.
Wayfarer
11-17-2002, 07:27 PM
And it is because of Ilúvatar's character. Ilúvatar's character is righteous and doesn't tolerate evil. He allows it because to prevent it would demolish free will, which is a great and beautiful gift.
My viking freind:
I have some small disagreement with you on the concept of evil. You say that evil is something that Ilúvatar doesn't tolerate because he is righteous. He allows it for a time because do do otherwise would negate free will, but it eventually catches up with and destroys those who practice it. I think this is a misconception.
It is much more fitting to say that Ilúvatar wishes us to abstain from evil because he knows that evil actions will eventually lead to destruction. He does allow self destructive behavior because he has gifted his children (esp humans) with free will. They may choose the good way, or the bad way. You will notice that elves (who are more subject to fate) are almost unilaterally good. They have an innate inclination to do the right thing.
The good who do what is right are those that are eventually upheld and brought out on the top, however long evil is allowed to endure (Free will), it still ends up being defeated.
But is this a cause or an effect? Is evil always defeated because it is evil, or is it evil because it is always defeated?
The One, being the creator of all things, wishes for his creation to act in the manner which he has engineered them for, because deviation in any other way is harmful to both the individual and the group. However, not content to rule over automatons (as melkor was), he gave each individual free will. Those that choose good will be saved, but those that choose anything else will destroy themselves.
what does evil enduring have to do with free will? you can have free will without allowing evil, evil is something that eru, or god for that matter, allows to exist.
Your supposition is both true and false.
You can excercise your free-will within the bounds of goodness. Certainly the elves did. But the elves have less free will than men do. If humans could never choose something bad, there is really little free choice at all. What's the point, if all answers are correct?
Hi Wayfarer! I've seen and enjoyed your posts (and agree with the majority of them, BTW :) ), but I don't believe I've posted with you before, so hello!
Lief and Wayfarer, let me throw in a comment from a different perspective regarding consequences and punishment. The perspective is that of a parent - correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that either of you two are parents :)
As a parent, I am in a position (and rightfully so) of authority over my young children. One of my main jobs is to discipline them. Now when people think of that word, they usually think of the negative aspect, but a large part of discipline is the positive aspect - instruction and encouragement and praise and rewards! However, re the negative side of discipline - consequences and punishment - I think that you are both right, and I'll try to explain how in the following paragraphs.
I'm a big believer in letting kids feel the consequences of their choices (of course, appropriately filtered by the parent, considering age and other factors, such as safety!) Now there are two kinds of consequences - natural and artificial.
Wayfarer is pretty much talking about what I would call natural consequences. For example, if one of the kids had a very breakable toy, say a doll with a porcelin head, I would sit down with her and say "Because this toy is breakable, what do you think would be a good way to play with it?" We'd talk over some scenarios, then come up with something like "You may play with it sitting down on the carpet or on your bed" or something like that. Now if she grabbed it up and ran outside and dropped it on the driveway and it broke, that would be a natural consequence of her disobedience. I would mourn with her over the loss of her toy, but show how its loss was a direct result of her choice to disobey, and I would not buy her another one immediately - we would have to work out some way of earning it.
Now Lief is talking about what I would call artificial consequences. If the kids just got a bunch of Legos and they were playing with them, and my daughter's older brother snatched some of the ones she was playing with away from her, I would tell him not to do that again or there will be a consequence for his disobedience. If he does it again, I would apply an artificial consequence - I would tell him "well, since you are not able to play nicely with your sister, you lose the privilege of playing with these new Legos for today." See, there would have been no natural consequence for his disobedience because his sister is smaller than he is, so I, as the rightful authority figure, must apply an artificial consequence that is related to his choice to disobey.
Do you see how punishment and consequences are not mutually exclusive, and how both are needed?
Sister Golden Hair
11-17-2002, 11:38 PM
Rian, will you adopt me? :D
Btw, what do you think of my sig? For three years, I never had one, and now that I do nobody notices.:p :D
Wasn't he just the sweetest guy?
LOL!
Now are you aware of the consequences, both natural and artificial? :D (and I'm really cranky in the morning, too :D)
Hey, I just got back tonight from a weekend getaway with "the girls" - and what is this???? **** A SIG for SGH??!!! **** WOW!! I love it!! Oh, what a guy!! "North away....." *sigh*
Sister Golden Hair
11-18-2002, 12:05 AM
Originally posted by R*an
LOL!
Now are you aware of the consequences, both natural and artificial? :D (and I'm really cranky in the morning, too :D)
Hey, I just got back tonight from a weekend getaway with "the girls" - and what is this???? **** A SIG for SGH??!!! **** WOW!! I love it!! Oh, what a guy!! "North away....." *sigh* Hey, artificail all the way. As long as you have a pot of coffee brewing in the morning mom, I promise I'll be good.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I am going North away, to find him.:D
Hey, MM, what's this?? An elven warrior?? (hee hee) But the big question is: Are you "hotter" than Legolas?? I know it's your FAVORITE thing to discuss!! *gag!*
(I'm sorry, I just COULDN'T pass up the opportunity to tease you about that! I can't stand those threads either!)
(although I DO have an opinion on the matter..... :D)
(not about YOU and Legolas though, because I don't know what you look like - I think it was Aragorn and Legolas that you mentioned)
(oh how silly!)
Sister Golden Hair
11-18-2002, 12:10 AM
Rian, have you been sipping on my beer when I wasn't looking?:p
Lief Erikson
11-18-2002, 12:42 AM
I think those were very good examples, R*an, and I actually would like to remark that they actually are the same opinions that I have held.
If I might quote myself . . .
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I never said anything against Ilúvatar's defending his own, and I agree that choosing the wrong course brings about eventual ruin for the one who does it, in Tolkien's works.
However, you cannot eliminate from the equation the necessary variable of punishment.
I suppose I simply didn't demonstrate the reasons for this opinion as clearly as your examples did :).
Wayfarer
11-18-2002, 12:45 AM
Rian, you have successfully shown myself and rian to be substially in agreement. I am most pleased to meet you. THere are a few points which I would state differently, but all in all, you provide an excellent argument. Thank you.
SGH, I did notice your sig, btw.
Wayfarer
11-18-2002, 12:54 AM
Now, I would like to make a more lengthy comment on evil and free will:
Whether evil and free will can coexist depends largely on how you define evil. For my purposes, I'm going to say evil is:'deviation of a moral being from the principles of virtue imposed by conscience, or by the will of the Supreme Being, or by the principles of a lawful human authority .'
Now. Can we agree that evil is not good, and good is not evil? In that case, good could be defined as 'adherence by a moral being to the principles of virtue imposed by conscience, or by the will of the Supreme Being, or by the principles of a lawful human authority.'
Now, it is Eru we are concerned with, and he is inarguably the supreme being in arda.
I maintain that Eru, as the creator, knows more about his creation than anyone else. This includes the proper working order.
Now, I don't think it's too big an assumption that the creator would want his creation to act in the manner it was designed to act. Indeed, it is almost inconceivable that he should do otherwise. I would also presume that any principles which he institutes will be to uphold the proper working order.
THis isn't really a problem, because most things don't have free will. Rocks always obey the law of gravitation. Missiles always obey the laws of momentum. Humans always obey the laws of traffic.
Right? ]: )
Now I come to my point. You see, a rock doesn't have free will, it has no choice whether or not it acts as it is supposed to. A human does. And if Eru were to force humans to act accordinly to the principles of good behavior, they would not have free will either.
Now, if Eru knows how things in his creation work best (as I presume he does), and if he wants them to work the best, (as I also presume he does), then it is impossible to have free will without the possibility of evil. Because evil is deviation from the principles which eru has imposed, the inability to choose evil is the inability to do anything other than what eru wishes you to do. Which isn't free will.
Now, there is a way which free will can exist without evil, and that is when every individual chooses to do good. This is what heaven is-the place where everybody has already made the choice. But it is impossible to have free will without at least the possibility of evil.
Sister Golden Hair
11-18-2002, 12:54 AM
SGH, I did notice your sig, btw. Really? Pretty cool huh?
:)
Wayfarer
11-18-2002, 12:57 AM
Yes. Who is it?
SGH - ugh, I can't stand beer! My mom used to use it to set her hair in curlers, believe it or not! :D I prefer White Zinfindel (sp?). I'm not too wild about red wines. No, I'm just silly because I had so much fun this weekend with some long-time girlfriends away from the little kidlings! (I didn't cut up ANYONE's food this weekend! :D)
"Will he be there, bright and tall, and the wind in his hair? Tell him. Tell him not to be reckless. Not to seek danger beyond need!"
"I will tell him," said Finrod. "But I might as well tell thee not to weep. He is a warrior, Andreth, and a spirit of wrath. In every stroke that he deals he sees the Enemy who long ago did thee this hurt."
Sister Golden Hair
11-18-2002, 01:00 AM
Originally posted by Wayfarer
Yes. Who is it? It is Andreth and Finrod, from "Athrabeth Finrod Ah Andreth" Histories of Middle-earth, volume 10, Morgoth's Ring.
Originally posted by Wayfarer
Rian, you have successfully shown myself and rian to be substially in agreement. I am most pleased to meet you. THere are a few points which I would state differently, but all in all, you provide an excellent argument. Thank you.
SGH, I did notice your sig, btw.
You're welcome! And I agree with what you stated in your next post.
And I just noticed you asked who were the speakers in SGH's sig, and now I see she answered you. The quote in my post after you said "who is it" is the next two paragraphs in the Athrabeth after her sig. SGH and Artanis and I discussed the Athrabeth at great length a little while ago - it is a beautiful work. You would probably be interested in the appendicies, where it discusses Tolkien's view of the fall of man.
Sister Golden Hair
11-18-2002, 01:06 AM
Originally posted by R*an
SGH - ugh, I can't stand beer! My mom used to use it to set her hair in curlers, believe it or not! :D I prefer White Zinfindel (sp?). I'm not too wild about red wines. No, I'm just silly because I had so much fun this weekend with some long-time girlfriends away from the little kidlings! (I didn't cut up ANYONE's food this weekend! :D) Sorry about the beer. I hate wine, gives me heartburn.
Isn't that grand, not having to cut up food for little people. You'll be sorry though when they don't need you for that anymore.:(
Thank you for the after quote on my sig. That always brings a tear to my eye.
Lief Erikson
11-18-2002, 01:14 AM
I agree completely with the opinions and assertions you've just given.
However, let me continue the train of thought. The principles and morals Ilúvatar gives are for his creation's good. His design is perfect and flawless, so to step outside of it is to lose this perfection. Only by coming back to it and reforming your ways can you enter back into this design. When you step outside of Ilúvatar's will or his "moral code", you won't necessarily instantly experience collapse and hardship, though. Numenor is an example of this. When they turned aside from Ilúvatar's will, they gained far more power and influence then they'd had while they were following in obedience to him and the Valar. Their punishment wasn't a natural consequence for their evil. And Ilúvatar's using Frodo to destroy Sauron. That was also an artificial consequence, his using an individual from the outside to defeat evil. I think it's safe to say that Ilúvatar hates evil, and it makes sense, for in Tolkien's world all the races natural hate evil unless they are corrupted, for then they dwell in it. These creatures were created by him and his personality is reflected in their natural behavior.
He hates evil not only because it's bad for the individual who is participating in it, but because of the harm it does to others. And because of this he punishes it, just like a rabid dog must be shot. To keep it from growing and spreading it must be put down, violently if necessary. We see examples of this in all of Tolkien's work. If evil was only harmful to the person participating in it, Ilúvatar wouldn't have to bother to take any action. Everyone would naturally not want to get hurt, so they would stay loyal to him. But often evil can be the more successful road, rather than only the rocky one.
A just god, like Ilúvatar, would have to bring punishments for evil. Evil can frequently appear more pleasant than good, and physically it probably is. To take the legos all for yourself appears to be the nice thing on the outside, and there isn't any reason for it to be more pleasant for you on the outside to not participate in taking it. You upset morals at once, and this leads to the path of imperfection, but if you take the legos, taking them doesn't always lead to personal misery for you. Only if you have a parent around, then you'll regret it.
Let me take R*an's example a step further. Suppose (Taking the natural consequence theory as the only truth and discarding the artificial consequence), there is the parent around and the older child takes the legos from the younger. The older child is made happy by having all the legos for himself now, and the younger child is miserable. The younger child goes to the parent and asks to get the legos back. The parent doesn't bother. What impression will the younger child get? That taking legos from someone else is fine, and won't be punished. It's more pleasant on the exterior, even if it's internally damaging. The younger child grows older and starts behaving the same way, without punishment. Lack of punishment leads to moral collapse not only for the person without discipline, but for others who observe and suffer from the lack of discipline.
This parent, however, luckily, is going to punish the older child. The older child is punished and the younger child sees that taking legos in the future isn't such a good idea. This is an artificial action of the parent, and without it, the normal consequence would have led to disaster.
Heh. You're right.
My apologies.
Lief Erikson
11-18-2002, 01:26 AM
All right :).
Wayfarer
11-18-2002, 01:30 AM
Yes... And both internal and external consequences of evil are well attested in tolkien.
For example, long before the numenoreans were destroyed in the Breaking, they had begun to die at a much younger age. Why? Because they had become corrupt, and they lived life in grasping fear, rather than with the humility and acceptance of death that Eru intended. They rejected the gift of men, and so made it a curse to themselves.
Sauron is another example. Tolkien writes that, after the ring was destroyed, sauron became impotent, unable to do anything but lurk in the shadows and consume himself in his malice. This is not a punishment from illuvatar, it had already begun before the ring was even made, and was certainly beyond remedy at the moment it was destroyed. In fact, I think the case could be made that destroying the ring of power did not actually harm sauron, it simply negated his power to harm others. And so he was left alone and powerless, with nothing to do but continue the downward spiral of self-torture. I think the word for that condition is 'hell'.
But I digress. You make some very good points.
Wayfarer
11-18-2002, 01:36 AM
Change what?
]: )
Hey, I changed it! Now, maybe you should change yours, now!
Wayfarer
11-18-2002, 01:46 AM
;)
Lief Erikson
11-18-2002, 01:49 AM
Well, I'll talk with you all more another time. For now, I bid you goodnight :).
MasterMothra
11-18-2002, 10:04 AM
heheh, if i were a betting man, i would go with legolas, rian.
great siggy SGH. do you approve of mine?
the illusion of free will, and how it applies to tolkien is a great topic of discussion. until you realise one thing: "there are no legos!"
Wayfarer
11-18-2002, 11:08 AM
Master mothra, i would like very much to hear you quaqlify the statement that free will in arda is an illusion. There is no basis for your claim whatsoever.
Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
Isn't that grand, not having to cut up food for little people. You'll be sorry though when they don't need you for that anymore.:(
Thank you for the after quote on my sig. That always brings a tear to my eye.
Yes, the nice thing is that I can solve almost all of my 2 younger kids' problems with a little elbow grease; my 12-year-old's problems are a little more complex.
You're welcome, and here's the final part and the ending of the Athrabeth: spoken by Finrod Felagund, Friend-of-Men, to Andreth the wise:
'But you are not for Arda. Whither you go may you find light. Await us there, my brother - and me.'
Originally posted by MasterMothra
[B]heheh, if i were a betting man, i would go with legolas, rian.
great siggy SGH. do you approve of mine?
Well, he would be a shoo-in, except I'm very partial to dark hair. What a tough decision ... I think about it day and night... *GAG* ACK!! UGH!!
Where is your sig from? Did you make it up?
the illusion of free will, and how it applies to tolkien is a great topic of discussion. until you realise one thing: "there are no legos!" Could you please elaborate on what you mean by that? I don't understand what you're trying to say (the lego part) (unless that was just a joke about the legos - obviously, the concept still applies)
Wayfarer
11-18-2002, 01:57 PM
I think it's from the matrix. 'There is no spoon.'
oh, ok - I never saw that movie. I'll have to ask my (dark-haired) husband about it :)
On a rabbit trail - can you imagine Elven legos? I bet they would be marvelous! And probably a lot prettier colors, too. Even our "here and now" legos are loads of fun, though. You should see some of the towers we build!
MasterMothra
11-18-2002, 03:46 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the illusion of free will, and how it applies to tolkien is a great topic of discussion. until you realise one thing: "there are no legos!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
yes that was just a little humor spinoff of the matrix:)
theres no need to get angry wayfarer(j/k, from gandalf in lotr)
my statements regarding the illusion of free will is just an opinion. most humans also think they have "control" of their lives, which i too think is just an illusion. there are certain factors that can cause free will to be non existant: being murdered is not a choice many of us would likely make, sometimes outside factors decide the course of history. gandalf says that bilbo was chosen to find the ring, and that frodo was also chosen to have it.that would mean that outside forces decided a matter before there was even a choice.
if an omnipotent god such as illuvatar knows what what path one will take before it is actually offered, does that individual actually have free will? can he change the path that is already known by eru? if he cannot, then he has no free will. if he can then eru is not an omnipotent god since the individual has chosen a path different from the one eru perceived before the event actually happened. therefore, can free will exists in the presence of an omnipotent being? i think not, but that is merely an opinion.
i forgot, my sig is part of a quote in unfinished tales. it is sauron speaking to ar-pharazon.
Nilore
11-18-2002, 04:06 PM
Iluvatar said to let evil be in the world.
Where's the fun in having a world evil?
After all, most stories are based on Good vs Evil. Aren't they?
Nilore
Originally posted by MasterMothra
my statements regarding the illusion of free will is just an opinion. most humans also think they have "control" of their lives, which i too think is just an illusion. there are certain factors that can cause free will to be non existant: being murdered is not a choice many of us would likely make, sometimes outside factors decide the course of history. gandalf says that bilbo was chosen to find the ring, and that frodo was also chosen to have it.that would mean that outside forces decided a matter before there was even a choice.
You seem to think in terms of all or nothing - do you really think that since a person can get murdered against their will that it logically follows that they have no free will at all? To me, your argument makes absolutely no sense. Now I would say that although sometimes you are subject, against your own will, to someone else's free will choices, that you certainly still have free will yourself and are responsible for your choices. In your example, do you think we should punish the murderer? Why should we, if he had no choice in the matter?
if an omnipotent god such as illuvatar knows what what path one will take before it is actually offered, does that individual actually have free will? can he change the path that is already known by eru? if he cannot, then he has no free will. if he can then eru is not an omnipotent god since the individual has chosen a path different from the one eru perceived before the event actually happened. therefore, can free will exists in the presence of an omnipotent being? i think not, but that is merely an opinion.
Well, I hardly know what to say to this that I have not already said in the previous pages of this thread. I suppose another example that might help illustrate how omniscience and free will are compatible would be how I "know" my kids - I know their particular tendencies - their weaknesses and strengths. In certain situations, I "know" what they will do - however, that does not take away their free will choice (and sometimes I am v. pleasantly surprised! :) ) Now the creator/creation relationship is so far above the parent/child relationship that it is entirely reasonable to say that God "knows" what will happen, but we as his creations have free choice. Do you truly disagree with this, or not understand this, or are you trying to "make things interesting" just for "fun"?
i forgot, my sig is part of a quote in unfinished tales. it is sauron speaking to ar-pharazon.
And lies that contain an element of truth are the most effective - Sauron was no dunce. The "freedom" that he promised may have been freedom from one thing, but enslavement to a far worse.
Wayfarer
11-18-2002, 06:17 PM
Mothra (didn't godzilla kill mothra?) , I think what you're saying is really about control, which is different from free will. Free will is the ability to make a choice, but you don't always have the ability to carry through. You can decide whether or not you want to leap of a building, but you can't suddenly decide to fly!
Now, if someone decides to kill you, that is within free will. But wether or not he succeeds is another matter. He might fail through stupidity, or he might be caught. The inability to carry through on a decision does not negate free will.
To correct you on a trifling point-Omnipotence is the power to do anything, omniscience is the power to know everything.
Foresight does not invalidate free will. I can predict a number of things, without forcing them to happen. But that's not nescessarily the case when you're talking about an omniscient being.
I do not know what illuvatar is like in this respect, but I do know the christian God does not 'forsee' things that will happen. He does not 'forsee' anything-he sees it, as it's happening.
I confess this is mind boggling. But there are a few reasons which I believe it to be so.
First, god is omnipresent. I believe that this means he exists simultaneously at every point in space and time. Therefore, the decisions you make, the things that lead up to them, and the eventual outcome are all happening 'now' for him. There is no past or future for an omniscient being, only an everpresent present.
This leads up to my second point: omniscience. God does not 'know' things in the way humans do, that is, remember them. He sees everything, always. And so the same eye that watches me type this is watching you read it, even though it hasn't even been posted. Or perhaps you could say, he is watching you read it, but also seeing me type it, even though by the time it's there for you to read I'll be off the computer.
In conclusiopn, I would say that Eru does not know the choices that are going to be made, he sees the choices that have already been made.
Do you understand?
BTW, MM, I have seen a change in your posts lately that I am glad to see - at first, I detected a slight prejudice in you, which I think is common in those who have a preference for the darker side of things - you seemed to think that people who are more interested in the "goodness" of Tolkien's world - or, more accurately, people that see and esteem the value in that goodness - tend to be rather naive and brainless. I hope you don't think that way now (if indeed you did before). True "goodness" is not a silly, la-de-dah-type thing, but something that is strong and beautiful and powerful and noble.
A v. interesting verse in the Bible is when Jesus says for his followers to "be shrewd as serpents, and innocent as doves" (Matthew 10:16). (and I bring up the Bible and Christianity, BTW, only as an example of a group of people who esteem goodness, even though we often fail at achieving it). It is morally wrong for Christians to not use their brains to the best of their ability - to be shrewd in the good sense. However, we are also to remain innocent - it isn't right for me to murder someone, for example, because I want to understand everything I possibly can (and of course, then I would not understand NOT being a murderer!) Also, one does not have to be immersed in evil to understand it well enough to combat it, or even to be shrewd, for that matter - goodness can understand evil, but evil cannot understand goodness - "and the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it." (John 1:5). I think that is VERY evident in Tolkien's work, esp. Sauron's mistakes in LoTR when he judged the Fellowship by how he, personally, would act - not too shrewd on his part, BTW. You see, evil is only goodness corrupted - it is not equal with goodness, it is less.
And I sure hope that you see by now that the posters in this particular thread are not v. concerned about the relative hotness of Legolas and Aragorn!
Wayfarer
11-18-2002, 07:17 PM
BtB: Rian, I never noticed the Diacratics in your signature before. That's brilliant! you don't mind if I snitch, do you?
Absolutely not! Help yourself :D Is your keyboard as uncooperative as mine? Most people's keyboards work with the alt-number combos; mine doesn't. To me, Tolkien's names are visually beautiful, as well, so I like to see (and use) the diacritical marks.
MasterMothra
11-18-2002, 09:09 PM
yikes, why is everyone so angry, i told you it was just an opinion? first off, i guess that i need to say that i DO NOT believe in GOD, nor do i believe that the god in the bible ever existed. i'm not saying that a god doesn not exist, just that i do not myself believe one to exist. therefore, i do not believe what is in the bible. so the bible carries little weight in discussions i am part of.
it is because of this i beleive that free will exists in our world. i believe we should punish criminals for immoral acts, because i believe the criminal has free will, and chose to commit the act without merit. not because of any divine law.
now about children, i do know a little about them myself rian. the way i raise them has nothing to do with any god.
to mr wayfarer,
Omnipotence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Omnipotence (lit. all power) is the power to do absolutely anything. This trait is usually attributed only to God. Theists hold that examples of God's omnipotence includes Creation and miracles. In most monotheistic religions, God is described as omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and all-loving (omni-benevolent?)
"I do not know what illuvatar is like in this respect, but I do know the christian God does not 'forsee' things that will happen. He does not 'forsee' anything-he sees it, as it's happening."
i can only say that you must not have read "revelation" in the bible, because that book deals entirely on what the christian god tells john will happen in the future.
now to tolkien.
my opinion, and i stress MY OPINION(as i do not want to ruffle any feathers here), is that eru is omnipotent, ie-he knows what the future holds. these are my reasons:
namo- he forgets nothing; and he knows all things that shall be, save only those that lie still in the freedom of illuvatar. since namo can see the future, im sure eru can also.
do you understand?
Well, I'm certainly NOT angry at all, and I don't think any one else was recently, either. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree - just because we disagree, that doesn't mean I'm angry with you! :) I guess it is just so clear to me how omniscience and free will can co-exist that I don't understand how it's not clear to you. It seems like we're just saying the same things back and forth. It doesn't matter that you don't believe in the God of the Bible for the purposes of the discussion - what do you think of how I presented how free will and an all-knowing God (modeled after the God of the Bible) can co-exist? What part of it do you not agree with? Could you try once more (sorry, I'm just not getting it :( ) and slowly explain it to me? :confused: Can we try one more time? It's so hard to communicate thru a keyboard, I know...
And I'm NOT saying you don't know anything about raising a child! Of course I'm not saying that! Please don't even think I'm thinking that! You raise your children to the best of your ability according to your belief system, and I raise my children to the best of my ability according to my belief system. I'm just using a parent/child scenario as an illustration of the free will/knowledge issue that we are discussing here. I'm so sorry if I offended or hurt you, I really didn't intend to in any way. I do think that truthful discussion is a good thing, though, so I won't hide my opinions or represent them falsely to not offend someone. If my manner of presenting my ideas was offensive to you, though, I ask for your forgiveness.
and re omnipotence - the power to do absolutely anything - that's where the free will thing is so amazing! The God of the Bible, and Eru, both let their created beings have free will, although they could certainly force things their way. However, if they took away free will, then loving obedience is taken away as an option.
Wayfarer
11-18-2002, 09:48 PM
Originally posted by MasterMothra
[Bi can only say that you must not have read "revelation" in the bible, because that book deals entirely on what the christian god tells john will happen in the future.[/B]
I'm afraid I used a bit of semanticism, let me correct.
God does know the future. But, since he is temporally omnipresent, he does not see it as 'the future' the way we do. We exist in the present 'now', we look back to the past and forward to the future. God exists in the eternal 'now', and for him all times are present.
God exists outside of time (or should I say that time exists inside God?). As a result, he can see the past, present and future all at once. He knows what choices will be made, because he has already seen them made.
is that eru is omnipotent, ie-he knows what the future holds. these are my reasons:
namo- he forgets nothing; and he knows all things that shall be, save only those that lie still in the freedom of illuvatar. since namo can see the future, im sure eru can also.
I quite agree, with one provision. Namo can see anything that has been preordained. Some things have not yet been decided. Since men are not subject to fate in middle earth, I think theat man'd free will falls under that category.
MasterMothra
11-18-2002, 10:17 PM
hehe, poor rian, i am so sorry if i led you too believe i am offended. you have to be one of the nicest people i know, just wanted to let you know that. and you have not offended me in any way, shape or form. neither has anyone else here.
wayfarer, that pic, that hair, hehehe. i do read a lot of your posts because they are fun to read.
"As a result, he can see the past, present and future all at once. He knows what choices will be made, because he has already seen them made. "
heres the meat and potatos, so to speak. theres a path that god has already seen made, the question is; do we have the ability to change the path that god has seen, or are we bound by the path that god has already seen?
example: god sees the future and we make a right turn, is it possible for us to instead make a left turn? and if we can make a left turn, then god was wrong, thus he is not omnipotent . thus we have free will, because we are not bound by gods omnipotence.
anyway, i will have to give you some more answers later if thats ok. i must clean the kitchen, cooked some chicken parmisan for me and my daughter tonight. also my head hurts from studying windows 2000 server.
now back to the regulary scheduled program.
Well, I'm certainly glad that I have not offended you, but you have offended me if you're just playing around with me, like it seems you are (pretending to be offended when you're not). I'm not angry with you (being offended does not necessarily mean being angry), but it makes me sad to think that I might have to stop replying to you, because I've enjoyed discussing things with you. It's very discouraging to take time to make a thought-out post and then find that it is irrelevant. :( :( Could you please use the smilies if you're joking around, in the future? I love to kid around, as long as all concerned know it's kidding! And if you decide to leave us elf-lovers :) then I'll pray for you anyway, whenever I think of you! heehee, can't stop me!! :D neener-neener! :D
example: god sees the future and we make a right turn, is it possible for us to instead make a left turn? and if we can make a left turn, then god was wrong, thus he is not omnipotent . thus we have free will, because we are not bound by gods omnipotence.
Well, I guess we will just have to disagree, because it seems that we are not getting anywhere. It is completely clear and perfectly logical to me how God can see the future and we still have free choice. Didn't my parent/kid example make that clearer at all? Don't you often know what your daughter will do, and she still has free choice?
I hope your head feels better (Windows has a tendency to give people headaches! :D) and your kitchen gets cleaned up quickly! My kids are now doing the kitchen (we just finished eating) :) The littlest sweeps under the table, the next oldest clears the table, and the oldest (12) rinses the dishes. Then I load and finish off. What a slavedriver I am! :D :D
Coney
11-18-2002, 11:12 PM
I've enjoyed reading this thread but what is all of this talk of God in aid of?
Didin't Tolkien write his stories "without allegory"?:confused:
Wayfarer
11-19-2002, 12:09 AM
Coney:
Most people misunderstand what tolkien meant when he said that. Or at least, what the meaning of allegory is.
Allegory is when something in the story represents something outside the story. For example, if 'frodo represents christ'.
The fact of the matter is the none of tolkien's writings are allegorical. Frodo is a young hobbit with a tough job to do, nothing more. But a story does not have to be allegorical to be applicable. The ring may not repreesent the atom bomb, tolkien himself tolkien compared the two.
Talking about Eru is almost always going to carry over into talking about God. Not because he resembles or portrays god (in the manner of narnia's Emporer Over Seas) he literally is God, because middle earth is our world. In the same way, Numenor literally is atlantis, and orcs literally are corrupt humans. As such, you can apply one to the other, without being allegorical.
MasterMothra
11-19-2002, 12:17 AM
rian, i read your post all the way through. there was no disrespect there. i thought i was clear when i asked the question:
"do we have the ability to change the path that god has seen, or are we bound by the path that god has already seen? " i just simply wanted an answer to that question. can you give it? ill give another example:
it is now 11/18/02. god decides to see what im gonna do on 10/02/05. he sees that i will get out of the bed on the right side. ok he now knows. now fast forward to 10/02/05. im getting out of bed, do i really have a choice to what side im gonna get out on? god has forseen that i will get out on the right side, so is that what i will do, or can i get out on the left side?
about the parent/child thing. heres my take using the same logic:
i(the parent, god, eru, whatever) am watching my child(human, child of god) play on a playground. i observe my child being assaulted by another child. what do i do. do i let my child fend for themselves and not interfere? or do i intervene and try to stop it before it happens? what would you do rian? now change(i) with eru, god, whoever and change (child) with humans or firstborn or gods children. then tell me if you have the same answer to both.
MasterMothra
11-19-2002, 12:35 AM
"Allegory is when something in the story represents something outside the story. For example, if 'frodo represents christ'.
The fact of the matter is the none of tolkien's writings are allegorical.
Talking about Eru is almost always going to carry over into talking about God. Not because he resembles or portrays god (in the manner of narnia's Emporer Over Seas) he literally is God, because middle earth is our world. In the same way, Numenor literally is atlantis, and orcs literally are corrupt humans. As such, you can apply one to the other, without being allegorical."
wait a minute, what you just described IS an allegory, but you initially said it wasnt. ??????
if numenor was actually atlantis, then wouldnt tolkien have used the word atlantis insead of numenor? since he used numenor instead of atlantis that is by definition an allegory.
"Most people misunderstand what tolkien meant when he said that. Or at least, what the meaning of allegory is."
we can only give our opinions as to what tolkien meant, coney. your assumption is just as good as anyone elses. he didnt want an allegory.
Wayfarer
11-19-2002, 12:46 AM
Mothra, have you read Alistair Reynolds? If not, you should. Great scifi author.
But that's besides the point. What I want to use is one of his blackbox technologies: Galactic Final Memory.
You see, there's this race of aliens called Grubs. They communicate chemically, and they can transfer memories from one to another. Now, supposedly, before they go extinct, they have a great databank of everything any of thier species learned in it's history. One of these bits happens to be time travel, and so they send parts of it back in time.
For example, they have a communication system which already contains all the messages that have ever been sent. So it knows what you're going to say before yoy say it. Freaky, huh? ;)
I talk about time travel, because that's the most rational example I can give of something like this. You ask: If god has seen which side of the bed you got out of timorrow, do you still have a choice in the matter? I ask: If I know which side of the bed you got out of yesterday, did you still have a choice in the matter?
I think you do. Now, if I send a message back in time to myself, telling which side of the bed you are going to get up on, do you suddenly stop having a choice? Of course not. But, having made the choice when you made it, you can't go back and change it, an you?
Wayfarer
11-19-2002, 12:55 AM
Quenya for numenor is 'Atalante'. I rest my case. ;)
Now, let me give you a few examples of what allegory is and is not:
The Pilgrims Progress is an allegory. The protagonist, Christian, represents christians on the road to heaven, 'the celestial city'.
Paradise Lost is not an allegory. The protagonist, Adam, does not represent anybody else. He is literally the same Adam as in the bible. He travels through hell, which does not represent anything other than itself.
The difference is not in the naming of things, but in the presentation, Aslan is Christ represented as a lion. Eru is God, represented as God.
Cirdan
11-19-2002, 04:42 AM
I found this quote in The Book of Lost Tales.
Then said Iluvatar: "The story I have laid before you, and the great region of beauty that I have described unto you as the place where all that history might be unfolded and enacted, is related as it were an outline."
This line indicates a knowledge of what can and cannot happen but not an absolute pre-destiny of individual events. Omniscience doesn't imply prior knowledge but only an awareness of all things and events in the immediate and the possibilities that could arise. That the future is already played out and god can fastforward in time is patiently in contradiction to free will. Many things can be planed to occur by an omnipotent being and thus become an inevitability;this does not mean they have already happened. Iluvatar knows the end game of his creation because he plans it to be that way, one way or another.
Free will doesn't mean unconstrained. The creation of free will implies a priori existence of evil. In ME the variable of free will is constrained at times by the prophesies. Earendil's coming to Arda is fortold and his life is affected by the efforts of Ulmo to direct Tuor to Gondolin. All the events that lead to Earendil's subsequent birth and flight from Gondolin of Earendil must play out in a specific way for the final result to occur. Even though Tour warns Turgon of the councils of Ulmo he is ignored. Gondolin must fall so that Earendil can be brought to the sea after the flight from Gondolin. This begs the question as to whether Earendil would have come in some other way to his destiny. Is it the means we do not know or is the free will receding at times to the interference of the Ainur and Iluvatar.
Another account in BoLT:
"Who was Iluvatar" said Eriol. "Was he of the Gods?"
"Nay," said Rumil, "that he was not, for he made them. Iluvatar is the Lord for Always who dwells beyond the world; who made it and is not of it or in it, but loves it."
While there are similarities between Iluvatar and the Christian god it is evident by the creation of a polytheist pantheon of deities associated to powers of nature, that the theism of ME was created not as religion but as pseudo-history and mythology. Iluvatar is neither as allegory or as actuality the same as god.
The fact that Melkor was a deity created without a corrupting influence indicates his curruption came from within. He manefested evil where none is shown to exist before. It must have been part of his creation and therefore it came from Iluvatar. Melkor did have may have had a choice but if the evil did not come from within then where?
Lief Erikson
11-19-2002, 04:51 PM
Cirdan, MasterMothra, the question you've raised about the contradiction between free will and Ilúvatar's future knowledge is one that R*an and I have each given many, many posts explaining the answer to already in this thread. That's the only reason why we're reluctant to explain it again. Our previous posts on the subject are as good as anything we could do now. Perhaps neither of you were there during the earlier pages of this discussion?
However, to prevent you from having to look over all of those other pages, I'll give you another example of why having knowledge of a decision someone else will make doesn't mean that you made the decision yourself, and that they have no choice.
If someone named Mike tells you that they're going to go to the bank, then you now know that they're going to do it. You know that they're going to go to the bank. The decision wasn't yours, but that doesn't alter your foreknowledge. Mike's decision was made, not yours. Thus you aren't making his mind up for him.
People can change their minds about things; they can make whatever decision they want to make. Perhaps you know Mike really well though, so you know that he won't change his mind. So you know that he's going to go to the bank, and that he won't change his mind, but even though you know with a high degree of certainty what he's going to do, you still aren't making his mind up for him.
With a god like Ilúvatar who has all knowledge, it's simply taking this one step further. I've been using human examples to make everything clear. Ilúvatar has foreknowledge, but as I demonstrated in my most recent example, that doesn't mean he's forcing you around. Just because Ilúvatar knows what someone will do doesn't mean he's making them do it. He could force everyone to do what he pleased, but that would destroy free will. But what I'm demonstrating is that he doesn't need to destroy free will to know what is going to happen.
Now let's say you go up to someone named Becky. "Where's Mike going?" she asks.
"He's going to the bank," you inform her.
A prophesy has taken place (Although Silmarillion and Biblical prophesies are different from this because of the level and way of knowing, I think the example should demonstrate my point). You're not making Mike go to the bank, and Becky knows now what Mike is going to do. Her foreknowledge doesn't alter Mike's action, and neither does yours.
Now let's say you know that going to the bank could be very bad for Mike. You know he's going to the bank (Like the prophesy of the fall of Gondolin), so perhaps you tell Becky to tell Mike not to go to the bank or something bad will happen. She goes and tells him. He's been forewarned about the future, and now he has a decision to make, whether to heed the warning or to ignore it.
All of these things take place without anyone having any control over anyone else. Prophesies, future knowledge, all of these things aren't contradictory with free will.
Cirdan
11-19-2002, 06:12 PM
I did read all the thread last night. I was up with a sick kid. The question of causality and the creation event effects the excercise of free will. What part of the design of the creator is represented in the causal chain and how much is free will. Free will is a matter of degrees and few can make unfettered choices. My example from the Silmarillion regarding Earendil illustrates how the gods did intervene to achieve the desired result. The more active god is in the affairs of the beings in it's charge the less free will excercised. Inevitable choices only give the illusion of choice. Iluvatar is clearly stating that wheere his creation design leaves off (the outline) is where the free will is excercised. The intent is to create outside the design and that is the purpose of the free will of the Ainur. Melkor's ability to be evil is within the design of Iluvatar. Without an outside corrupting force Melkor originates evil. The ability to create evil is part of the design. Iluvatar either knows he is creating an evil being or not. If there is omniscience then there is benign evil in the creation of Melkor. The indication I see is that there are some events that are inevitable and some that are not. Iluvatar has a framework for operating within his creation. He also wants the inhabitants to create, to fill in the outline. Foreknowledge of this external creation as a result of design is intent. Melkor has no knowledge of punishment or consequence to his rebellious behavior because there is nothing stating this explicitly and he is not omniscient.
That's it for me for now. I'll be back after I get some sleep. zzzzzz
Lief Erikson
11-19-2002, 07:25 PM
I actually think that your "framework and filling in" theory is incorrect. Ilúvatar's taking action doesn't destroy free will, and I have some examples of this.
Through Frodo, Ilúvatar brought down Sauron. Frodo's action was entirely free will, yet Ilúvatar had it planned way in advance, when Bilbo first found the Ring. Gandalf said that a higher authority meant him to have it, and that this same authority meant for Bilbo to find it. Because, as Wayfarer said, Ilúvatar can see all things and knows everything, he can plan in advance. He can use the smallest people for great things, and lift them up over impossible odds to do wonders. He waited for Earendil's simple act of obedience in coming back and asking for forgiveness for the Noldor and requesting help before he used the Valar to destroy Morgoth. He waited for the Valar to ask for his aid before he came to their defense and destroyed Ar-Pharazon's hosts.
For example, if you know that Mike is going to the bank, you know you will soon have some money, so you can plan to go to the grocerie store when he gets back. In preparation, you get your things together and are ready to go when he returns. You didn't make him go to the bank, but you can do what you please in events because you know he is going to take this action.
Ilúvatar can work through people and his will being done doesn't have to destroy free will at all. It can be an overall purpose, or design. He can raise up people who have complete free will, but whose free will is in accord with his design, to do his purposes. Free will isn't negated by his taking action.
Then said Iluvatar: "The story I have laid before you, and the great region of beauty that I have described unto you as the place where all that history might be unfolded and enacted, is related as it were an outline."
I actually think that you're reading more into this than is actually there. His commanding the larger events doesn't negate free will in the larger things. Frodo's free will wasn't destroyed by his being raised up by Ilúvatar to destroy the Ring. I have never seen any action of his, big or small, which disturbs the free will of his creations in any way.
What the passage says is that Ilúvatar has shown the person he's talking to what history's outline is. It doesn't say that he doesn't know what will happen in the smaller areas, or that he doesn't act in the smaller areas as well (Galadriel's providential gift to Sam of the box of dust and seed from Lothlorien could be taken as a kind blessing from Ilúvatar, as could other things). It simply says that he hasn't told the listener all of what will happen, it doesn't imply that he himself doesn't know, or that his design isn't visible in the smaller things either.
Ilúvatar has related the outline of the greater events to the listener. He hasn't told the smaller things, but that doesn't mean he doesn't work with them and do things and know things. Free will isn't disturbed by close interaction of Ilúvatar with his works, and the passage you've given simply means that Ilúvatar has told the basic story (The abriged version, as it were) to the person he's speaking to.
Maybe if I take the sentence and edit out the middle part of it for a moment you'll get a clearer sight of this:
Then said Iluvatar: "The story I have laid before you is related as it were an outline."
Now let's look at the remaining part in the light of this new meaning, which is that only the outline (For that is all Ilúvatar says he has related) is revealed.
and the great region of beauty that I have described unto you as the place where all that history might be unfolded and enacted
Look at that closely. Ilúvatar says that all history might be unfolded within this story. Large and small actions. He simply has revealed the outline of it, but that doesn't in any way imply the rest of what you're saying the passage means, Cirdan.
Wayfarer
11-19-2002, 07:39 PM
This line indicates a knowledge of what can and cannot happen but not an absolute pre-destiny of individual events. Omniscience doesn't imply prior knowledge but only an awareness of all things and events in the immediate and the possibilities that could arise.
Not an absolute predestiny, no. The bottom line is that many choices are not made by eru, but by ainur, or elves, or humans. This does not mean that eru has limited knowledge of what will happen.
In fact, your entire line of argument restson a faulty assumption: That forknowledge and free will are mutually exclusive. There is really no reason to think that is the case.
You seem to believe that forknowledge causes the events which it predicts, in which case it negates free will. However, it is far mor satisfactory to say that the events cause the forknowledge, in which case the two are compatable
The fact that Melkor was a deity created without a corrupting influence indicates his curruption came from within. He manefested evil where none is shown to exist before. It must have been part of his creation and therefore it came from Iluvatar.
Let me get this straight. Eru creats melkor as part of his design. Melkor rebels against erus design. So therefore Melkor's rebellion against Eru's design is part of eru's design? Does that make sense?
Melkor's ability to be evil is within the design of Iluvatar.
I agree. Melkor was created with the ability to rebel. But it does not follow that because he was made with the ability to rebel, that he was intended to rebel all along. If melkor was created with the intention that he rebel, how does THAT allow for free will?
...the gods did intervene to achieve the desired result. The more active god is in the affairs of the beings in it's charge the less free will excercised.
Someone working to make something happen does not negate free will.
In you example, Ulmo works to make one thing happen. Tuor works to make another thing happen. But it is Turgon who, in the excercise of free will, chooses what to do.
It is both yes and no. Melkor did strip his minions of free will, but did Manwe or Ulmo? I don't believe you can show any evidence of them forcing thier will on anybody. In fact, you can look at examples like feanor, where it arguably would have been better for them to force him to do something different.
The fact remains that each creature is made with a specific purpose. But they were also created with free will-including the ability to not carry out that purpose. The fact that some choose to excercise that option does not mean that they were not intended to carry out another purpose, any more than the fact that some choose not to excercise it means that they don't have free will.
One last point: We can know what choices were made in the past. The fact that we know what choices were made does not negate the fact that they were choices.
I do not view the future as any different from the past. It is simple we, from our vantage point in the present, cannot see it as clearly. But the fact is that whatever choices we're going to make, we're going to make them. In that sense the future is as pre-determined as the past. The question of free will is who does the deciding.
Sleep well, my bearded freind. You're not going to get any rest on this issue. ]: )
Originally posted by MasterMothra
"do we have the ability to change the path that god has seen, or are we bound by the path that god has already seen? " i just simply wanted an answer to that question. can you give it?
Your question is invalid because you are putting God into time like we are (evidenced by your use of the words "has seen" and "already"). (and, btw, there are such things as invalid questions - i.e., questions to which a wholly truthful answer cannot be given. For example - if someone asks me "are you Irish? Please answer yes or no." Well, I CAN'T answer just yes or no. If I answer yes, then they can say "well, you don't have any English blood in you then." But I AM part English! If I answer no to the question, that would not be wholly truthful either - I am part Irish. I would say to them "That is not a question to which I can answer "yes" or "no". Please reword your question to something like "Do you have any Irish blood in you?", then I can give a valid yes/no answer.) So I would say the question you are asking is not properly a yes/no question. I would answer your question not with a "yes" or "no", but with "whatever path we choose with our free will, God knows it."
it is now 11/18/02. god decides to see what im gonna do on 10/02/05. he sees that i will get out of the bed on the right side. ok he now knows. now fast forward to 10/02/05. im getting out of bed, do i really have a choice to what side im gonna get out on? god has forseen that i will get out on the right side, so is that what i will do, or can i get out on the left side?
Same answer as that given above. It is YOUR choice, but God, in his omniscience, knows what it will be. Another example (although you've probably heard it) is that God is like the author of a play. Inside the play, the characters are bounded by time and have free will, but as the author, God knows what they will choose. Although any analogy will break down eventually, and of course the author of the play wrote the play and knows how it turns out, but the part I want you to consider is how the characters WHILE IN THE PLAY have free choice.
about the parent/child thing. heres my take using the same logic:
i(the parent, god, eru, whatever) am watching my child(human, child of god) play on a playground. i observe my child being assaulted by another child. what do i do. do i let my child fend for themselves and not interfere? or do i intervene and try to stop it before it happens? what would you do rian? now change(i) with eru, god, whoever and change (child) with humans or firstborn or gods children. then tell me if you have the same answer to both.
Well, I don't see how this relates to the free will/omniscience being compatible. What are you getting at here? Are you asking if it's proper to allow an evil action to proceed if you have the power to stop it? Well, that's a subject for another post, because this one is getting too long! :D Let me know if that's what you want to address.
Originally posted by Cirdan
[B]I did read all the thread last night. I was up with a sick kid.
I'm sorry, I hope he's better. Were you able to read to him at all? It depends on the type of illness what we as parents can do to help out. Once my older son was up in the middle of the night with some pain, and I found that looking thru family pictures really got his mind off of it while the pain med. was going from stomach to blood stream. But sometimes it's just a matter of quietly being there with them. It's so hard to have a sick child :( I hope you both are better soon.
The question of causality and the creation event effects the excercise of free will. What part of the design of the creator is represented in the causal chain and how much is free will. Free will is a matter of degrees and few can make unfettered choices. My example from the Silmarillion regarding Earendil illustrates how the gods did intervene to achieve the desired result.
Darn, now I can't find the letter where JRRT talks about this. Yes, I agree it's a matter of degree, and sometimes the Valar, and sometimes Eru Himself intervened. But I would say that typically, men exercised their free will.
If there is omniscience then there is benign evil in the creation of Melkor.
We probably mean the same thing here; I would say, though, that there is the possibility of evil choices being made by Melkor or any other created being, but not a certainty. Did you perhaps mean "latent" instead of "benign"? (hard to choose words when your eyes are crossing with tiredness, isn't it! And the kids always seem fine the next day! :D)
Melkor has no knowledge of punishment or consequence to his rebellious behavior because there is nothing stating this explicitly and he is not omniscient.
Do you mean that Melkor didn't know that he was doing anything wrong?
Originally posted by Wayfarer
Talking about Eru is almost always going to carry over into talking about God. Not because he resembles or portrays god (in the manner of narnia's Emporer Over Seas) he literally is God, because middle earth is our world. ..... As such, you can apply one to the other, without being allegorical
Absolutely.
Re Eru being God, from JRR Tolkien's letter #156:
There is only one 'god': God, Eru Ilúvatar.
Re ME being our world, from JRR Tolkien's letter #211:
I have, I suppose, constructed an imaginary time, but kept my feet on my own mother-earth for place.
There are many other refs, but these are just the first two I found on the subject.
MasterMothra
11-19-2002, 10:11 PM
i cant break it down any simpler than that. if some one asks me if im irish i say yes........but im also scandinavian. but in the end i am truthfull in saying im irish.
what i meant by my child post is that your child post has as much relevance to the topic as mine did.
im not putting god into any form, he is all powerful isnt he? he can forsee the future, and if we cannot change what is forseen then we have no "real" free will, just an illusion of it. all this is according to the christian belief that god is all powerful. the two cannot exist in the same dimension at the same time. that is why i dont believe that god exists, because, we have free will.
same applies to tolkien in my opinion.
Wayfarer
11-19-2002, 10:36 PM
what i meant by my child post is that your child post has as much relevance to the topic as mine did.
Saying that doesn't exactly help your case, neighbor. ;)
he can forsee the future, and if we cannot change what is forseen then we have no "real" free will, just an illusion of it. all this is according to the christian belief that god is all powerful. the two cannot exist in the same dimension at the same time. that is why i dont believe that god exists, because, we have free will.
We can know what choices were made in the past. The fact that we know what choices were made does not change the fact that we had free will in the choosing.
God can know what choices are made in the future. The fact that he knows what choices will be made does not change the fact that we will have free will in the choosing.
Your torturous logic doesn't stand. Even so, I forsee that you're going to keep repeating the same unsupported premise. ]: ) Now you have no choice in the matter! Hah!
i dont believe that god exists, because, we have free will.
Let's consider the argument for a moment:
If god exists, and he knows the future, then there is no such thing as free will.
We have free will.
So, God does not exist.
Do you realize you base your conclusion on two unsupported premises?
First, as has been pointed out, there is no reason to think that foresight and free will are incompatable.
Second, you have no evidence that you do, in fact, have free will. After all, by your own logic melkor's rebellion against illuvatar was really illuvatar's plan,a nd even though he must have thought he had free will he really didn't. What stops you from applying the same logic to yourself?
No, your argument doesn't hold water. In part, because you make the not-uncommon mistake of pretending your ideas about this God whom you profess not to believe in have more weight than those who do profess to believe in him. Free will has never been a problem for me.
Lief Erikson
11-19-2002, 11:03 PM
Originally posted by MasterMothra
im not putting god into any form, he is all powerful isnt he? he can forsee the future, and if we cannot change what is forseen then we have no "real" free will, just an illusion of it. all this is according to the christian belief that god is all powerful. the two cannot exist in the same dimension at the same time. that is why i dont believe that god exists, because, we have free will.
God is all powerful, but you're making a contradiction in your statement. You say that he is all powerful, but that he still has to "forsee." Therefore, like R*an pointed out, you're putting him in a box. It says in Psalms 90:4 of the Bible: "For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night."
Ilúvatar is the same. Both are the absolute creator. They created time, they don't abide by it. They never have to forsee. Before the beginning of the world (Either world ;)), God knew all of its history. It was a map laid out before him, and he gave people the free will to do as they chose. If it was forced to walk in his tune, sin would not exist and everyone would live in happiness. But no, he didn't force us. He had enough respect for his creations to create free will for them, so that they were themselves. With that came the possibility of evil, which he likewise knew would gain strength. He knew all and is all powerful, yet he permits us to make our own decisions. In Arda, people had the ability to do the right thing, and they had the ability not to. In Earth, people also can discern right from wrong (usually ), but here we get into Christian beliefs, such as original sin, Christ's coming to save the world, etc. So I won't get into that here and now.
What did you think of the example I already offered, MasterMothra? What don't you understand about our explanations?
If one human knows what another human is going to do, that doesn't mean they're manipulating, they're simply knowing. Why should it be different for God?
Lief Erikson
11-19-2002, 11:10 PM
Originally posted by Wayfarer
Second, you have no evidence that you do, in fact, have free will. After all, by your own logic melkor's rebellion against illuvatar was really illuvatar's plan,a nd even though he must have thought he had free will he really didn't. What stops you from applying the same logic to yourself?
Actually, you aren't right on that one. There is evidence that there is free will, unless you're attacking the nature of God/Ilúvatar. The simple fact that sin exists shows that everything is not done by God and by his will. Only if you strike at his character and say that he's a hypocrite (For calling the devil the father of lies, or for punishing Morgoth for evil when he actually purposely made them so and commanded their movements), a liar (For calling himself good in nature), and a being that can dabble his fingers in both good and evil (As is evidenced by all history).
Originally posted by Wayfarer
In part, because you make the not-uncommon mistake of pretending your ideas about this God whom you profess not to believe in have more weight than those who do profess to believe in him.
I have not seen MasterMothra act in this biased manner. As appears to me, he is willing to discuss this and is stating an apparent contradiction that many people think is a contradiction. If he doesn't understand our examples or arguments, that is another matter from simply saying I'm right, which is not something he's said. As a matter of a fact, I've heard him say several times that this is "just my opinion."
(Lief, did you mean MasterMothra in your last paragraph?)
Well, MM, looks like you and I are at an impasse :) Oh well - I won't bother to repeat again what I've already said several times over. To me, free will and God's omniscience are perfectly logical and compatible. Apparently they aren't to you. C'est la vie! I hope you see the error in your logic soon! :D ;)
MasterMothra
11-20-2002, 12:18 AM
"Your torturous logic doesn't stand. Even so, I forsee that you're going to keep repeating the same unsupported premise. ]: ) Now you have no choice in the matter! Hah"
well, i dont know what to say, umm....................thank you?
what i appreciate about wayfarer is his willingness to respect others opinions, especially when they are not the same as his own. it is your gift in life i suppose. how old are you by the way?
Cirdan
11-20-2002, 12:25 AM
Originally posted by Wayfarer
In fact, your entire line of argument restson a faulty assumption: That forknowledge and free will are mutually exclusive. There is really no reason to think that is the case.
[b]
If the creator instigates the chain of events with prior knowledge as to every step then there is no choice, it is fatalism. If the creator creates without knowing the entire chain of events then free will exists. Many paths might lead to the same final destination. Maybe that would be the creator's interest; to see how[i] it plays out.
[b]
You seem to believe that forknowledge causes the events which it predicts, in which case it negates free will. However, it is far mor satisfactory to say that the events cause the forknowledge, in which case the two are compatable
Only by removing the creator as the original cause of creation. When I get water by combining hydrogen and oxygen it is not my foreknowledge of the outcome that causes it. I do know how and why it occurs, though.
Let me get this straight. Eru creats melkor as part of his design. Melkor rebels against erus design. So therefore Melkor's rebellion against Eru's design is part of eru's design? Does that make sense?
It specifically states in the book that this is the case. Melkor can make no music that Iluvatar does not intend. The gift of free will must mean an acknowledgement that evil will be possible.
I agree. Melkor was created with the [I]ability to rebel. But it does not follow that because he was made with the ability to rebel, that he was intended to rebel all along. If melkor was created with the intention that he rebel, how does THAT allow for free will?
All the Ainur had specific roles and orientations in Middle Earth. Is it not possible that Melkor's role is the rebellious one. Maybe the free will is the degree to which he rebels. Without the external corrupting influence I see that he must originate the evil. Why did he rebel while the others did not? Melkor, the bad boy of ME.:)
Someone working to make something happen does not negate free will.
Unless they are omnipotent.
In you example, Ulmo works to make one thing happen. Tuor works to make another thing happen. But it is Turgon who, in the excercise of free will, chooses what to do.
The question is whether by not attacking Melkor when he was weaker did Turgon act to fullfill the destiny of Earendil? That requires a bit of speculation as to whether Earendil would have left Gondolin and sought Arda had Gondolin not fallen and Melkor had been defeated.
It is both yes and no. Melkor did strip his minions of free will, but did Manwe or Ulmo? I don't believe you can show any evidence of them forcing thier will on anybody. In fact, you can look at examples like feanor, where it arguably would have been better for them to force him to do something different.
I'm actually more on the side of frere will and a bit less omniscience as it is more workable. That some Ainur pushed they fates in some active way does not eliminate free will, but it certainly does weight the choice heavily. Deity pressure is even worse than peer pressure.:) The real question that is begged is why doesn't Ulmo go directly to Turgon. Is it because the only real goal is to fullfill the destiny of Earendil? I only wonder because the Ainur could have cast down Melkor themselves if that was thier goal.
Sleep well, my bearded freind. You're not going to get any rest on this issue. ]: )
Thanks buddy! I will decide whether to contend that the future is only accessable within that time-space and that the present is only predestined to those that have come back in time. Going forward beyond the present requires the game to be over and that the creator is merely a "monday morning quarterback." I would hope that is not the case. I prefer Rian's child analogy, as far as analogies go, in that knowing the circumstance and the players, and being very wise, it is likely that the outcome can be understood before it happens, as opposed to having happened and only now being relived somehow.
until tomorrow them:)
Hey, I learned something cool in church Sunday (how often does that happen? Soooo kidding)...
Obviously, if God is omniscient as well as omnipotent, he must know what we will do as beings on the Earth. So, why bother at all?
Our teachers' explanation: Basically, we believe we chose to come here and live our lives as God would have us (i.e.; the ten commandments). He knows where we will end up after death and all, but we need to prove it to ourselves. How lame would it be if He just sorted us and told us where we belong without any kind of test? Obviously, we would have to accept it, He being omnipotent and all, but He is just. Assigning our destiny without any measure would be not-so-just.
It is better to watch a movie yourself than to just be informed of the ending, isn't it?
Lief Erikson
11-20-2002, 02:11 AM
Cirdan, what I really don't get is how you can simply restate the same opinions as you gave before, ignoring all of the examples and explanations that we've given on these subjects. We have shown in numerous examples from real life and the Tolkien books that free will can coexist with foreknowledge. You haven't given any reason why it can't, you've simply said it can't.
But rather than restating my examples and the reasons for them again, I will simply go on to the two parts of your posts that we haven't already responded to as thoroughly.
It specifically states in the book that this is the case. Melkor can make no music that Iluvatar does not intend. The gift of free will must mean an acknowledgement that evil will be possible.
I think I know which part of the book you're talking about. I've seen that section quoted many times as an argument by MasterMothra, and one or two others. What it says, if we're talking about the same passage, is that Melkor cannot make any tune that Ilúvatar will not turn to good.
Without the external corrupting influence I see that he must originate the evil. Why did he rebel while the others did not? Melkor, the bad boy of ME.
Yes, Morgoth was the bad boy of ME :). Why did he rebel while the others didn't? There are possible explanations for this, but I'll mention my favorite possibility, because it is the same as my opinion as to why Satan fell from grace.
When he was created, he was created with a free will. This made him capable of evil, right from the start. However, as he was created by God, his nature was originally good. He was created powerful, very powerful, and this was one of the factors that led to his undoing. Morgoth knew that he was greater than the other Valar, and this led to pride. Yet he couldn't create by himself, he could only alter, and he was second only to Ilúvatar. He became envious of Ilúvatar. Pride and envy certainly aren't the greatest sins, but they were the first ones that led to others. He grew to want to strike out on his own and gain more power for himself. Ilúvatar stood in his way to complete dominancy, and he was arrogant enough to think he was up to the match, so he rebelled. Other Maiar obviously also thought that he had a good chance of success, otherwise they wouldn't have joined in his revolt.
This is what I think happened, and I think that pride and envy were also Satan's downfall, for he also was created originally good.
As for whether or not Morgoth was purposely created evil . . . if you accept that point of view, then you're calling Ilúvatar a liar, a hypocrite, and a tyrant. He strikes out many times against evil, to protect and uphold the righteous. If he purposely is dabbling in it himself, by causing it or creating it, then he is a hypocrite. He also is a tyrant to the good peoples that he claims to uphold, for bringing upon them evil. He also is a liar for pretending to be good.
I think that there are strong enough evidences against this point of view in the books to disqualify the idea that Ilúvatar created Melkor evil.
Lief Erikson
11-20-2002, 02:14 AM
Originally posted by R*an
(Lief, did you mean MasterMothra in your last paragraph?)
Yes I did. Thanks for noticing that; I've edited it now :).
And here comes R*an with ... you guessed it! ... ANOTHER quote from The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien (and if you hang around on Entmoot long enough, you won't need to buy the book, because I'll have quoted the whole thing! :D
From JRRT's letter #153
To conclude: having mentioned Free Will, I might say that in my myth I have used 'subcreation' in a special way ... to make visible and physical the effects of Sin or misused Free Will by men. Free will is derivative, and is therefore only operative within provided circumstances; but in order that it may exist, it is necessary that the Author should guarantee it, whatever betides: sc. when it is 'against His Will', as we say, at any rate as it appears on a finite view. He does not stop or make 'unreal' sinful acts and their consequences.
Lief Erikson
11-20-2002, 02:52 AM
Here's the quote I'm assuming you're using, Cirdan. Please tell me if I'm wrong.
Then Ilúvatar spoke, and he said: 'Mighty are the Ainur, and mightiest among them is Melkor; but that he may know, and all the Ainur, that I am Ilúvatar, those things that ye have sung, I will show them forth, that ye may see what ye have done. And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined.'
We have seen from multiple examples in the books that Ilúvatar's character isn't soiled by evil, and that on the contrary, he is the greatest warrior against it. What is shown here is that he has complete power, authority and knowledge. He can turn evil to good, and things that go against his design he can use for his design. Arda remade will be better than the original Arda, probably because of evil's having been permitted. The knowledge of evil and that everyone in this later time are spared from it will make them appreciate more what they have, and make their life in an evil free environment all the more joyous. These things that have been your greatest argument against our point of view, MasterMothra and Cirdan, are in fact great assets in proving the goodness of Ilúvatar's character as well as his knowledge and power.
And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme [Italics added] may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me
I'd like to point out again, Cirdan, that this shows a concern for not only the great events, the "framework," but also for the smaller things that happen in the music. All music, all creation comes from Ilúvatar. He doesn't do evil himself, but he permits it, and he does great wonders by changing the discord (Because its source is himself) into something beautiful that supports Ilúvatar's final creation.
Permitting evil and turning it to good doesn't impinge Ilúvatar's character, for he can see all ends. It also doesn't imply that he's involved in committing this evil. Morgoth's treachery was forseen, and because of that, Ilúvatar was able to use it for his own purposes. Everything is spread before him, and everything he turns to righteousness.
Commanding events however in this way doesn't have to disrupt free will at all. Not once in any part of any of the books do I see Ilúvatar or any of the Valar purposely use their power to make others do what they please.
However, I do see frequent times where Ilúvatar punishes evil without disrupting free will. Frodo's casting the Ring into Mount Doom was sufficient proof of Ilúvatar's willingness to use people to accomplish his ends, and his using the Valar to punish Morgoth. Notice that he only did the latter action after Earendil made his voyage and asked for forgiveness for the Noldor. Repentence was the key to Ilúvatar's punishing Morgoth, just as through a humble person he was able to punish Sauron. Not through any means of forcing people to do as they pleased were these things done; Frodo and Earendil had their own choices to make, and made them. Things can be prophesied, but never did the prophesy being fulfilled happen in ways that wouldn't have happen naturally. These events weren't "forced," any more than any of the other events that happened in the books were forced.
Wayfarer
11-20-2002, 02:58 AM
I found an interesting quote today; it's even in quenyan!
*rë ilqua yéva nótina
"When all will be counted."
I found it as the citation in Ardalambion's quenya wordlist, but it seems to refer to the judgement at the end of Arda. If that is the case, it would seem to indicatethat not all things have been 'counted' or decided, and that one day they will be.
Lief Erikson
11-20-2002, 03:16 AM
That seems contradictory to other quotes in the Silmarillion, unless you take it as a Day of Judgement type of thing. What's the context?
Wayfarer
11-20-2002, 04:48 AM
If the creator instigates the chain of events with prior knowledge as to every step then there is no choice, it is fatalism. If the creator creates without knowing the entire chain of events then free will exists.
This is rather difficult to explain, but I will try.
When God created the universe, he was not creating it in the way that you or I can really understand. We get teh impression that he 'created' it on the first day, and let it progress in a linear manner related to him, and that he has to wait for us to make our choice. But it would be more correct to say that he created the entire history of the universe, from beginning to end, all in one short burst, and that our free will is simply that we choose what we do at any given point in that history. I shall try and make it planar by using an illustration.
Compare history to a line on paper, and yourself to a dot which travels from left to right on the paper, forming that line. Better yet, imagine a series of points forming that line. Each point decides where the point immediately to the right will be, but it is only aware of the points to the left. Following me?
Now, the line has already been formed, and I, looking at the paper, can see all of it in a glance. I can also write a formula which describes the influence that each point has on the point to the right (For example X=Sin(y+free will) ;)) But that doesn't in any way force the point to make a given decision. I still have no control over that, I simply see the outcome.
Part of the problem in expressing this is that god doesn't exist in time like we do, and so in one way god knows everything before it happens, but in another way he doesn't know anything until it happens. An we, well, we're like a point somewhere in the middle of the line. Even though the line is really already complete, we can only see the stuff that comes before us. And even though the line has a determinite shape, that shape is a result of the choice we make at this junction.
It specifically states in the book that this is the case. Melkor can make no music that Iluvatar does not intend. The gift of free will must mean an acknowledgement that evil will be possible.
Eru says that 'none can alter the music in my despite'. That's 'in Contemptuous defiance or disregard'. or "in defiance of another's power or inclination. " And I think what that means that, even though all the ainur had the power to change the music, melkor could not change it into something contrary to it's original purpose. Witness how Eru raises up two more themes which combat the dischord and uphold the original theme.
I think perhaps it could be expressed this way:
Melkor wanted to change the music from it's stated purpose to his own purpose. But Iluvatar clearly says that none can alter the music in his despite. Does this mean that Eru wanted Melkor to change the music, or that melkor failed to alter the music significantly from it's original form? I think it's the latter. I think that, despite anything that evil men (or gods) do to resist, things will work out the way they were meant to. I do not think this shows that the music was designed to be rebelled againast, but simply that it was designed to work as intended even if resistance does occur.
Does that make sense?
Unless they are omnipotent.
Doesn't omnipotence include the power not to do something?
An omnipotent being could make every decision that is ever made throughout history. And yet we have free will. How is that? He chooses to allow us, as limited creatures, to make some decisions. We may not make the best decisions, but for some reason he seems to be of the opinion that having us make the right decision in our limited fashion is better than him making the perfect decision for us, and worth the risk of us making the wrong decision.
The real question that is begged is why doesn't Ulmo go directly to Turgon. Is it because the only real goal is to fullfill the destiny of Earendil? I only wonder because the Ainur could have cast down Melkor themselves if that was thier goal.
I can answer those questions.
ulmo didn't go to turgon directly because, by this time, melkor was gaining the upper hand, and had actually driven ulmo's power from certain water areas in beleriand. Unfortunately, the area around gondolin was one of these, and so Ulmo couldn't get through with a message,-melkor was interfering.
The ainur could have cast melkor down themselves-they had done it twice before. But both of those times the struggle was catastrophic, and destroyed or reshaped most of the world. (There's a reason they called it the war of wrath). Remember, when the Valar eventually do attack Morgoth, they end up destroying Beleriand. It comes down to morgoth's ring-and action against him will have to destroy the very earth.
Wayfarer
11-20-2002, 05:01 AM
Lief:
That quote is from Firiels Song, which is an incomplete primitive Qenya work by tolkien. The full text is:
Ilu Ilúvatar en káre eldain a f*rimoin
The Father made the World for Elves and Mortals
ar antaróta mannar Valion: númessier.
and he gave it into the hands of the Lords. They are in the West
Toi aina, mána, meldielto - enga morion:
They are holy, blessed, and beloved: save the dark one.
talantie. Melko Mardello lende: márie.
He is fallen. Melko [Melkor] has gone from Earth: it is good.
En kárielto eldain Isil, hildin Úr-anar.
For Elves they made the Moon, but for Men the red Sun;
Toi *rimar. Ilyain antalto annar lestanen
which are beautiful. To all they gave in measure the gifts
Ilúvatáren. Ilu vanya, fanya, eari,
of Ilúvatar. The World is fair, the sky, the seas,
i-mar, ar ilqa *men. Írima ye Númenor.
the earth, and all that is in them. Lovely is Númenor.
Nan úye sére indo-ninya s*men, ullume;
But my hearth resteth not here for ever,
ten s* ye tyelma, yéva tyel ar i narqelion,
for here is ending, and there will be an end and the Fading,
*re ilqa yéva nótina, hostainiéva, yallume:
when all is counted, and all numbered at last,
ananta úva táre fárea, ufárea!
but yet it will not be enough, not enough.
Man táre antáva nin Ilúvatar, Ilúvatar
What will the Father, O Father, give me
enyáre tar i tyel, *re Anarinya qeluva?
in that day beyond the end when my Sun faileth?
Lovely. Sheer Bliss. :)
MasterMothra
11-20-2002, 11:09 AM
"When God created the universe, he was not creating it in the way that you or I can really understand. "
"This is rather difficult to explain, but I will try."
really? then how is it that you understand?
Eru says that 'none can alter the music in my despite'. That's 'in Contemptuous defiance or disregard'. or "in defiance of another's power or inclination. "
no it doesnt say that, ill quote it one more time for you:
"And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite."
all the themes played have they're "uttermost" source in eru, even morgoth's. and none can alter it, not even melkor, even though he thinks he is altering it, he really isnt.
in my opinion, free will is always compromised with the inclusion of an all powerful deity. sorry if that offends you.
Wayfarer
11-20-2002, 12:00 PM
really? then how is it that you understand?
did I say I did? ;) I try, but i admit that I can't do more than get a rough idea of it. But trying to encompass an extradimesional process taxes my little brain. ;)
nor can any alter the music in my despite.
Which is what I repeated originally. :)
But you mention all themes having their uttermost source in Eru. Isn't free will the ultimate satisfaction of this? Because if the ability to do evil is part of the gift of free will (which is from Eru), then you aren't forced into the somewhat indefensible position that eru really wanted Evil in the first place, and was just being arbitrary.
in my opinion, free will is always compromised with the inclusion of an all powerful deity. sorry if that offends you
I strongly believe that america would be a great deal better if people could handle disagreements and not take anything personally.
That said, there are very few opinions you could have that would genuinely offend me. Even if I found your manner offensive I would have respect for your ideas. And so far all parties have been eminently civilized, which speaks very highly of you all. ;)
Lief Erikson
11-20-2002, 12:55 PM
I thought I already gave you, MasterMothra and Cirdan, a workable alternate explanation for that passage, which actually fits better with the observed evidence. Your current theory, that Ilúvatar is responsible for evil because all themes come from him, totally goes against all observed evidence throughout the books.
And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite.
This doesn't have to mean that evil comes from Ilúvatar, and if you take it that way, you run into major contradictions.
Morgoth attempts to do evil, but because his actions were already mapped out from the beginning, his theme from Ilúvatar, he couldn't defeat Ilúvatar. His arrogance, power and knowledge were all for naught, for Ilúvatar could use them for his own purpose. Morgoth's evil would create the better final Arda Remade. Ilúvatar isn't the one who does evil, and evil is against his nature. Yet because Melkor's theme is in Ilúvatar and his natural choices known by Ilúvatar, Ilúvatar can command and do as he pleases with Melkor's theme. Ilúvatar didn't change Melkor's natural choices at all, and he didn't make them either good or bad. We've already given many, many examples, none of which have yet been shown unworkable, as to how free will and foreknowledge can coexist. Morgoth's music is against Ilúvatar's theme, but Ilúvatar knew it would be and planned to use it for an even better thing. Therefore, it is against Ilúvatar's will and design, while at the same time, because of Ilúvatar's being all powerful, it is part of his design and is one of his themes, that he is using for a greater purpose.
I know that these things aren't specifically stated in the passage, but they are an alternate interpretation that works, and that fits the observed evidence far better than your interpretation, MasterMothra and Cirdan, that Ilúvatar created Melkor evil.
Originally posted by MasterMothra
in my opinion, free will is always compromised with the inclusion of an all powerful deity.
We have given many examples as to why this isn't the case, and so far you haven't responded to them. Would you, please?
Lief Erikson
11-20-2002, 12:59 PM
Thanks for sending that passage, Wayfarer. You're right, it really is lovely :).
Originally posted by Wayfarer
(For example X=Sin(y+free will) ;))
I like that :) And I ask "y sin?" ;) I suppose it's because we're proud and selfish *sigh* And another profound question - "y tan?" I, for one, can't, without getting a sunburn!
I do not think this shows that the music was designed to be rebelled againast, but simply that it was designed to work as intended even if resistance does occur.
I like the way you worded that, Wayfarer. The intent will always carry thru, even against resistance.
Doesn't omnipotence include the power not to do something.
Yes, and the letter quote I gave shows that JRRT thought that way, too.
Thanks from me, too, Wayfarer, for F*riels Song. She is such a complex character. The song is really lovely.
And I have a slightly different take on the oft-quoted "And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite." I would back it up a level - not concentrate on the actual discordant theme that Melkor tried to force in, but the fact that Melkor wouldn't even be around to even have the chance of forcing it in if Ilúvatar hadn't created him.
Rather like the story about God and the scientist -
The scientist says to God, "hey, God, we don't need you anymore! Look at all of our advances, our knowledge - you can just retire quietly somewhere and leave us alone."
God answers "You think you don't need me? Well, let's compare our skill - let's have a man-making contest!"
scientist - "ok, GO!" *starts gathering stuff*
God - "oh, no you don't! You go get your OWN dirt!"
MasterMothra
11-20-2002, 03:15 PM
"We have given many examples as to why this isn't the case, and so far you haven't responded to them. Would you, please?"
"if god has seen the future, do we have the free will to change it?"
that is as simple as i can make it. i understand everyones posts and what they are saying, and i respect them, they are good. but that doesnt mean i have to agree. i used to be a practicing christian myself, and i can see what your talking about in that perspective, but i do not share that perspective anymore. i dont trust in a god that has never been there for me, so i learned to trust in myself and i am a lot better off. that may not work for you, but it does for me.
i'm not saying i'm right and your wrong, because i dont think that anyone can truely know. either in tolkiens works or with religeon, we will see when we die, or not. i think that tolkiens works are a great topic of discussion, and i like this site for the most part, but all i can do is tell you why i think like that. if you understand then great, if not then im sorry.:)
Originally posted by MasterMothra
i dont trust in a god that has never been there for me, so i learned to trust in myself and i am a lot better off. that may not work for you, but it does for me.
When I see something like that, I can well imagine that you have gone thru some very painful times. I'm so sorry to hear that - pain is agonizing. I am very well "acquainted with grief" myself (quote is from Isaiah 53:3) as are the other posters here, I'm sure, in varying degrees. I know you have absolutely no obligation to me, except perhaps an "Internet friendship" obligation, as we have posted together for awhile now on some thoughtful topics, but I would like to be bold and ask a favor of you: Would you do me the honor of reading a book on my recommendation: The Problem of Pain by C. S. Lewis, who was a great friend of Tolkien's.
edit- BTW, be sure to read the preface, it's very good.
Wayfarer
11-20-2002, 03:47 PM
[QUOTE"if god has seen the future, do we have the free will to change it?"
that is as simple as i can make it.[/QUOTE]
The answer, of course, is no. Because if you have been seen to make a certain choice (as an excercise of free will) then that choice is made, and there is no way you can go back and make it again.
It's sort of like time travel-if you go back and try to change history, it will probobly turn out that history was the way it was in the first place because you tried to interfere.
Butthat's enough on that subject. I understand your position a well, mothra But, if i may say, I dont trust in a myself because I've never managed to get it right, so i learned to trust in God and I am a lot better off.
Incidentally, what does it mean to be a 'practicing' christian? Is it really something that you need to practice for, or even can? ]: ) ;)
Lief Erikson
11-20-2002, 04:05 PM
i dont trust in a god that has never been there for me, so i learned to trust in myself and i am a lot better off. that may not work for you, but it does for me.
When you don't receive answer to prayer, that means God doesn't exist. :mad: That's a reason for nonbelief that I've heard many times now, and there are definite reasons why you don't receive an answer. God isn't obligated to answer all of our prayers in the affirmative. God doesn't necessarily demand that people who don't know him personally trust in him in blind faith, either (Which is, I think, what you used to do). But as this is totally off topic, I'm not going to get into explaining those things here.
"if god has seen the future, do we have the free will to change it?"
Yes, I do understand your point of view, MasterMothra. If you can understand our point of view on this, then you know that God's knowing the future doesn't contradict free will. God could set everything up and make it go, thereby making our apparent free will not real free will. But he didn't, in either the Silmarillion or the real world. Your question is one that we've answered. God's "seeing" the future doesn't mean we're forced into a certain design. We can do what we wish, only God knows what we will do. That doesn't mean that he's making us do it; he simply knows what it'll be.
You remember what you did yesterday? Well let me use this as another explanation for the apparent paradox. You're saying, God knows what I'll do tomorrow, so what can I do to change what I'll do tomorrow? It's all mapped out. What you did yesterday is mapped out to you now, so you know what you did. Certainly you had the ability to do something different, but your seeing now what you did do then doesn't mean that now you're making yourself in the past do the actions you did then (I hope you understand that sentence ;)). You aren't in control of what you did yesterday, but you know that it happened. And at the time it was happening, you had the ability to change it. You could have done exactly what you liked with that day. You simply now see what you did do.
Well now let's go to the present day, which is today. God is in the tomorrow, he can see what you did today. What you're doing now is today, but God can see it as yesterday. You can't change what you did before, but you could have changed it while you were doing it. You are in charge of your own actions now, but God can simply look back, as it were, and know what you did (or are going to do).
If you can see what you did yesterday, you can go to someone and make a prophesy about it easily. "Guess what," you can say to someone else, "I spent 3 hours on the computer yesterday."
God can say, "Guess what, you are going to grow up to be a strong young man who will go to Africa as a missionary."
This isn't any more contradictory to your free will then it is to your looking back at yesterday and saying what you did then. In God's eyes, it has already happened. From your limited perspective, it hasn't happened yet, but God isn't inside the same time frame as you are. If he was, then your argument would be very reasonable.
God is outside of time. To us, it is a question of what will we do? To him, it is a question of what we did. His giving a prophesy doesn't force us into that course of action; it was our free will that led us to do that action.
You simply have to stop looking at God from inside your own time frame, and understand that he is outside of time and created time, and thus to him everything has already happened is happening. Our now isn't his now. Look at the Bible, how he expresses the eternity of his being. I AM, he says. This is what Jesus once said: "Before Abraham was, I am."
Lief Erikson
11-20-2002, 04:09 PM
You must see, if you can understand the argument, that there is a strong answer for your question. Only if you continue to look at it from your current perspective, placing God in your now, does your question make much sense. Since you don't believe in God and you don't believe Jesus is the way to heaven, you can ignore the Bible and thus make your question make sense. Therefore, by discarding the Bible you can make your question make sense. But then it isn't a question to Christian beliefs, it is a question to your own beliefs. Therefore the Biblical explanation is more likely a better alternative then a newly created belief with an unanswerable question in it :).
You can also wait until you die till you find out the truth, just like you suggested you might do, but I wouldn't advise it ;). It is possible to get to know God here on Earth, to witness his miracles, to hear his voice and to see his hand at work.
You don't have to accept the Bible's passages as truth, but we're going by the Silmarillion and Tolkien's works, assuming that they're true for his world, and we're discussing his world. You don't have to accept this Christian explanation for our own present times, and I respect your opinions. You can continue to put God in our now, if you want to.
But in the Silmarillion, I think you do have to accept it. That is simply because it makes sense, while the other explanation, that Ilúvatar made evil on purpose, doesn't make sense at all because of the observed evidence, unless you assume Ilúvatar to be, in reality, a despicable character.
Lief Erikson
11-20-2002, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by Wayfarer
Incidentally, what does it mean to be a 'practicing' christian? Is it really something that you need to practice for, or even can? ]: )
Did you really not know the answer to that? (Raisees his eyebrows) Well, I can explain that one to you. A practicing Christian is one who goes through the outward thing, going to church, saying their prayers, believing in God and having faith in him. They pay tythes, perhaps attend meetings, and do all of the things that a normal Christian does.
The difference is in the heart. A born again Christian who has received the baptism of the Holy Spirit has entered into a powerful new world, the spiritual dimension. Then things change for them. They pray, and their prayers are answered. Laying on hands can bring healing to people. Faith is rewarded by miracles. They can hear God's voice, and they have evidence of God's love. Then they can really, truly love God before family, before friends, and can be willing to give up everything they own, including their very lives for him. God doesn't demand a blind faith, he simply requests that people seek him. They don't have to believe he exists to seek him, to pray that he will reveal himself. Once he does, then life takes an utterly exciting turn that can take one's breath away.
Lief Erikson
11-20-2002, 04:18 PM
Jeepers, I might be going overboard on my posting. I hope you people read it all, but I suppose if you don't want to, you don't have to ;).
Cirdan
11-20-2002, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Cirdan, what I really don't get is how you can simply restate the same opinions as you gave before, ignoring all of the examples and explanations that we've given on these subjects. We have shown in numerous examples from real life and the Tolkien books that free will can coexist with foreknowledge. You haven't given any reason why it can't, you've simply said it can't.
But rather than restating my examples and the reasons for them again, I will simply go on to the two parts of your posts that we haven't already responded to as thoroughly.
I've read all the analogies that you posted but I don't find them convincing. But enough about me.
What it says, if we're talking about the same passage, is that Melkor cannot make any tune that Ilúvatar will not turn to good.
Except that these "tunes" are the force behind the creation of Arda. Iluvatar is saying that he has a plan greater than all and beyond the awareness of the Ainur, and they are part of it without exception.
As for whether or not Morgoth was purposely created evil . . . if you accept that point of view, then you're calling Ilúvatar a liar, a hypocrite, and a tyrant. He strikes out many times against evil, to protect and uphold the righteous. If he purposely is dabbling in it himself, by causing it or creating it, then he is a hypocrite. He also is a tyrant to the good peoples that he claims to uphold, for bringing upon them evil. He also is a liar for pretending to be good.
That would be your interpretation and is not supported by the story. The fact that Melkor is rarely impeded in his activity and rarely punished shows that his activity is within the design that Iluvatar put forth. He doesn't always intervene because he wants his "children" to rise above and in doing so become greater than their creation. Iluvatar had every chance to destroy Melkor if pure goodness was his only desire in creating the Ainur. What he desires is for them to "fill in" creation with themselves. Would they grow without adversity? Would the sun and the moon ever have been creates without the destruction of Telperion and Silperion? It is not that he wishes evil but that he allows it and even creates its potential. How does the thought of evil occur without an external influence? It is easy enough to say that they just happened but it doesn't answer the question. If it is in the nature of the created being then the propensity is, in fact, part of the creation. That is far from saying Melkor was intended to do all the evil things he did. In many cases it was the weakness and lack of resolve on the part of the other Ainur to stop him. It was also part of the design that Melkor challenge the other Ainur. He was made the strongest so me could stand up to any of the individual Ainu so they needed each other to fight him and in doing so learn the interdependency of the lives in ME.
Lief Erikson
11-20-2002, 05:05 PM
Except that these "tunes" are the force behind the creation of Arda. Iluvatar is saying that he has a plan greater than all and beyond the awareness of the Ainur, and they are part of it without exception.
He said that any evil Morgoth did would rebound to good, and that Morgoth could create no tune that Ilúvatar wouldn't use for his own design. Morgoth wasn't designed to carry out evil, he was permitted to carry out evil because he was given free will. And Ilúvatar's plan was capable of using even Morgoth's evil for good.
Originally posted by Cirdan
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for whether or not Morgoth was purposely created evil . . . if you accept that point of view, then you're calling Ilúvatar a liar, a hypocrite, and a tyrant. He strikes out many times against evil, to protect and uphold the righteous. If he purposely is dabbling in it himself, by causing it or creating it, then he is a hypocrite. He also is a tyrant to the good peoples that he claims to uphold, for bringing upon them evil. He also is a liar for pretending to be good.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
That would be your interpretation and is not supported by the story. The fact that Melkor is rarely impeded in his activity and rarely punished shows that his activity is within the design that Iluvatar put forth.
I know that Ilúvatar's character being so villainous isn't supported in any way by any of Tolkien's works. However, that is the view that you have to accept if you're going to say that he created evil, and that he predestined Morgoth or anyone else evil.
Originally posted by Cirdan
The fact that Melkor is rarely impeded in his activity and rarely punished shows that his activity is within the design that Iluvatar put forth. He doesn't always intervene because he wants his "children" to rise above and in doing so become greater than their creation. Iluvatar had every chance to destroy Melkor if pure goodness was his only desire in creating the Ainur.
He uses ordinary people for his own design, such Frodo. The Noldor betrayed him, and Ilúvatar permitted them to go against him, but punished them by permitting Morgoth to work his evil against him. Only when, through Earendil, they asked for forgiveness did he work through the Valar to punish Morgoth. They had come back into the right place, and once they did, Ilúvatar punished their oppressors swiftly. His design is pure goodness, but it isn't pure goodness to deny free will. That's an argument people often use against Christianity as well: If God is all powerful, why doesn't he just destroy evil all in a flash?
Because God/Ilúvatar knows that Arda/Earth Remade will be better for there having been sin. Without sin, we could never have come to know god's justice, and righteousness would have been natural, not appreciated. He permits it to bring his creatures to an even greater holiness. The final outcome will be pure goodness, and his design for getting there also is good. Ilúvatar can hate evil, destroy and punish evil, but evil was permitted because of free will, and the final outcome will be good.
Originally posted by Cirdan
What he desires is for them to "fill in" creation with themselves. Would they grow without adversity? Would the sun and the moon ever have been creates without the destruction of Telperion and Silperion? It is not that he wishes evil but that he allows it and even creates its potential. How does the thought of evil occur without an external influence? It is easy enough to say that they just happened but it doesn't answer the question. If it is in the nature of the created being then the propensity is, in fact, part of the creation.
I agree with you that Ilúvatar probably permits evil to enable his creatures to come to a greater goodness. That doesn't demonstrate a "fill in" creation, though. Once evil has served its purpose for the final good, it will be destroyed. An example of this is the use of Morgoth to bring the Noldor to repentence, and then Morgoth's defeat once they had mended the fault in their ways.
None of this shows that Ilúvatar creates evil and I think he does hate it. However, as in the Bible, sometimes only through pain can you come to know him better.
So to conclude, Cirdan, I think that this post shows I'm in agreement with you on a lot of the points you brought forth. For once :rolleyes: :).
Lief Erikson
11-20-2002, 05:09 PM
I just thought of another example of how evil can rebound to good. You know when the Noldor left in a rebellious act, Ilúvatar didn't make Morgoth punish them. The entire episode was all governed by free will, but when you look at it from a farther away perspective, you can see that all of it also was designed to bring the Noldor back to Ilúvatar.
Cirdan
11-20-2002, 05:38 PM
Originally posted by Wayfarer
When God created the universe, he was not creating it in the way that you or I can really understand.
Truest thing said yet.:)
Compare history to a line on paper, and yourself to a dot which travels from left to right on the paper, forming that line....
The analogy is nice but it is over extended. It can't explain the way we experience our time. There must be an absolute time with reference to all existence. When we make a choice (in it's origin) we are on the edge of the wave of absolute time. If we are experiencing time in retrospect then our existence is past. We cannat change our past exept to fold back, to recede from the edge of the wave of absolute time and experience externally our own existence. To follow a line a in time prexistant isolates our existance from the vectors of all other events established at the absolute time. These things effect and constrain our choices to a finite set. There are events where all but one of the choices are precluded. The analogy likens us to a phonograph needle that may skip if it wants to be is still confined to a limited path.
Eru says that 'none can alter the music in my despite'....
I think perhaps it could be expressed this way:
Melkor wanted to change the music from it's stated purpose to his own purpose. But Iluvatar clearly says that none can alter the music in his despite. Does this mean that Eru wanted Melkor to change the music, or that melkor failed to alter the music significantly from it's original form? I think it's the latter. I think that, despite anything that evil men (or gods) do to resist, things will work out the way they were meant to. I do not think this shows that the music was designed to be rebelled againast, but simply that it was designed to work as intended even if resistance does occur.
Does that make sense?
I don't think the intent is that the music did not change. The tense of the statement is that he cannot make (as in ever) music that is not within the original intent. The next theme shows the greater complexity and some of the sorrow as a response to the discord of Melkor. When Iluvatar wept was it for the beauty or the bittersweet? The real answer is that Iluvatar's original design took into account the possibility of discord such as Melkor created. The greatest beauty in ME is within the children of Iluvatar to not only overcome the evil of Melkor but to thrive and be stronger for the overcoming.
Doesn't omnipotence include the power not to do something?
It does not allow for the original intent and action to result in something that was unintended or unforeseen. The intent to create beings capable of evil and a knowledge that they would likely do some evil acts does not constitute an evil intent in the creation only if there is not foreknowledge.
The ainur could have cast melkor down themselves-they had done it twice before. But both of those times the struggle was catastrophic, and destroyed or reshaped most of the world. (There's a reason they called it the war of wrath). Remember, when the Valar eventually do attack Morgoth, they end up destroying Beleriand. It comes down to morgoth's ring-and action against him will have to destroy the very earth.
The effort to cast Melkor down would be the same no matter who does it. The mess usually resulted from physically destroying his creations as well. That may have been neccessary to prevent corrpution of others coming accross them. I think the intent of Ulmo was not chared by all the Valar so that is why he acted by proxy, not because Turgon was more powerful. I will dicuss this more when we discuss that chapter.
Of course I remember. I'm Cirdan:)
MasterMothra
11-20-2002, 05:47 PM
"He said that any evil Morgoth did would rebound to good, and that Morgoth could create no tune that Ilúvatar wouldn't use for his own design"
thats incorrect. he said that morgoth could create no tune that did not have its uttermost source in eru.
"However, that is the view that you have to accept if you're going to say that he created evil, and that he predestined Morgoth or anyone else evil. "
illuvatar did create evil, he created everything. evil did not just happen, it was displayed through melkor in the music, and that music has its utmost source in eru. so evil can be traced back to eru.
"The Noldor betrayed him, and Ilúvatar permitted them to go against him, but punished them by permitting Morgoth to work his evil against him."
if they are permitted, the wheres the free will?
"None of this shows that Ilúvatar creates evil "
it shows cirdan's view, and he's entitled to that. just as you are entitled to yours.
since everyone likes to quote scripture, i've got a couple of my favs to share.
God good to all, or just a few?
PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.
JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.
Wayfarer
11-20-2002, 06:00 PM
cirdan's...he's
A she, friend. ;) He's a she. :p
Cirdan
11-20-2002, 06:01 PM
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
He said that any evil Morgoth did would rebound to good, and that Morgoth could create no tune that Ilúvatar wouldn't use for his own design. Morgoth wasn't designed to carry out evil, he was permitted to carry out evil because he was given free will. And Ilúvatar's plan was capable of using even Morgoth's evil for good.
Definitely.
I know that Ilúvatar's character being so villainous isn't supported in any way by any of Tolkien's works. However, that is the view that you have to accept if you're going to say that he created evil, and that he predestined Morgoth or anyone else evil.
I don't believe he was predestined but more inclined by his nature than the others. It is not malicious on Iluvatar's part to create a catalyst for greater good. Is one sine greater than the sum of all the goodness? I don't think so.
I agree with you that Ilúvatar probably permits evil to enable his creatures to come to a greater goodness. That doesn't demonstrate a "fill in" creation, though.
None of this shows that Ilúvatar creates evil
He definitely creates evil in the form of Melkor. It does not mean that his intent is evil. He can have good intent in the totality of his creation and stilll create something that is evil as a vehilcle to the greater good. The "fill in" is what he asks of his creations. He states he has many things in mind of which the Ainur are unaware. The presence of free will does not require evil.
So to conclude, Cirdan, I think that this post shows I'm in agreement with you on a lot of the points you brought forth. For once :rolleyes: :).
It's not such a terrible thing, is it?;):)
Cirdan
11-20-2002, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by Wayfarer
A she, friend. ;) He's a she. :p
That's news to me...:o :D
Guess I better start peeing sitting down.:rolleyes:
MasterMothra
11-20-2002, 07:21 PM
lol :D
Wayfarer
11-20-2002, 07:25 PM
Oops! Had you confuse with BoP there. :o
I posted with someone for the longest time who had a male LoTR name for her Entmoot name AND an avatar of a male character, and she turned out to be female :eek: My Entmoot name is the name of a lady in the Sil (as I am female :D), but it's not too well known, and actually looks rather like Ryan, a male name - I wonder how many people think I'm a man? (my amazing command of logic would make people tend to think that I'm male :rolleyes: :D )
Cirdan
11-20-2002, 09:08 PM
Originally posted by Wayfarer
Oops! Had you confuse with BoP there. :o
I'm flattered by the comparison. Have you waded through the "Picture of Me" thread? Most of trhe people I thought were guys.. weren't.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.