Well I am not interested in that. Just quoting from a book isn't that helpful for a discussion and once I see it is quoted I skip the text. I want to know a persons viewpoint, not that of Tolkien. And even so, I can interpretet the Sil differently then you, simply because my frame of reference is different then yours or someone elses. I still do have those questions that the Sil, UT, Letters does not cover. So my questions remain.

Rhapsody, Olorin gave a pretty good answer to at least one of your questions. Any comments on what he said? Did it help at all?

Plenty of those here with or without quotes.

Ok, this is my 3rd attempt of typing a reply.... arrrrgh. Not sure if I can capture that momentum of the first two..

Olorin's posts are great, yeah. But. There is always a but I am not asking about Melkor's nature, but that of Eru himself. I know more then enough about Melkor.

Laurelindhe ilmarin posted on Monday 10th January 2005 (05:45pm)



If Eru created Melkor as an offspring from his mind, shouldn't Eru have evil in himself? Did he create Melkor with the potential that such an offspring could turn evil? Even more, didn't Eru cast Melkor into the void because maybe it was hard to see that such an creature mirrors something from yourself that you rather do not want to see? Or even more, when he tried to correct this offspring, did he fail because he himself did not fully understood this part of himself? Just some musings. As Virumor said somewhere else: Tolkien did not explain or did not wish to explain everything, so I am wondering what the thoughts of others are on this.

Somehow an Eru with both good and evil inside himself sounds more believable then a only good Eru and would explain more how Melkor could have become like he did.

Rhapsody - you are asking much the same question as I did to start this thread. There have been many points of view both with and withoutTokien quotes . Those POV have lead to other POV and so on. Rather than ask the same question perhaps you could pick up on some of the comments already made and form more questions from them and give us your POV on those comments.

As for quotes, they give insight into where a POV may have come from and in a thread like this I think they are invaluable.

Rhapsody, you are now delving into an area where there will likely be basic philosophical differences, and we must therefore be very cautious where we go, because this is, and must remain, a friendly site. Discussion is wonderful, but, you'll see what I mean in a minute I hope.

The nature of Eru. Wow. We don't know, except that He is the Creator. Before Him there was nothing. No Ainur. No physical world. Eru and the void. Eru chose to create those beings we read about in the Ainulindale. Eru chose to embody them with thoughts, desires, and wisdom, each to a certain degree. Eru gave them a large amount of free will, to use in making real the fruit of His thought. Manwe's thought turned to the air. Ulmo's thought turned to the waters. Aule's to the making of things. Yavanna's to living things, both flora and fauna. Etc. To Melkor Eru gave the greatest amount of power and thought, slightly greater than that of Manwe, and they are called brethren. Eru gave Melkor a bit of the thought of everything, kind of a Jack of all Trades. Melkor, however, did not want to be a "Master of None". Melkor wanted mastery of all. Eru did not give to Melkor the "gift" of evil, which is where my reading of your questions leads me. Evil and good are not gifts of themselves, but byproducts of the use of other gifts. If you intentionally use your gifts for the betterment of all around you, in this case for the beautification and betterment of Arda, the result is what we would call "good". If, as Melkor did, you use these gifts for your own purposes and designs, maliciously and with the desire to control and subjugate, the result is "evil".

Back to Eru. The theism Tolkien created in the Silmarillion is monotheistic. Eru is responsible for the creation of all that is. In this light, Eru is also responsible for the creation of the concept of "evil". That does not mean, however, that evil itself was embodied in Him. Sam says, "Handsome is as Handsome does". Sam is a lot wiser than most give him credit for. Evil and good are resultants, again, based upon how one uses what is given them.

Again, read the Sil carefully. Eru did not cast Melkor into the void. The Valar did. Eru created the Ainur to order things as they saw in the Music. Eru sits and watches, sometimes smiling, sometimes weeping, sometimes angry, sometimes wistful... until all has come to pass.

Eru did become involved at least once in what was happening in the world as it was He who took Gandalf out of 'thought and time' and returned him to Middle-earth to finish his work.

Nice post though. Good explanations.

I don't understand what you mean. Can you explain what purpose that would be? Melkor disobeyed Eru three times during the music. His reasons were not evil at first, but selfish. He didn't know what he was doing, none of the ainur knew what they were making. He only knew he didn't want to do like Eru asked him to. He then later became ashamed, gready, abused his powers, jealous, destoryed what the others created and though he was given several chances to change his ways, he didn't. I belive it all boils down to his great ego.

Amari’:
Disobedience is not per se a bad, or indeed an evil thing. Evil things happened in Iraq recently because some people were too obedient. Instead of thinking things through themselves they trusted and followed the orders of their superiors, thinking "I'm just a small cog in the machinery that has only my part to do. I might not understand it, but surely, those above me have the overview to see things that I can't comprehend, and I should blindly trust them. Who am I to say they are wrong?"

This sort of evil has arisen many times and in many areas, both geographically and socially.

Reading your post through again, with this context in mind, Melkor was the best of the bunch! If Eru told him to do something without explaining to him what it was that he was supposed to create, then "yelling at him" for doing "it" "wrong", then heck, even I would have been pissed off!


What is evil anyway? I prefer the Spinoza way: "Don't condemn the person, only the action" Which actions are evil seem to depend on both intent and end result, and can also be heavily dependent on what side you are on in a divided conflict.

Later Melkor is clearly evil in his desire to destroy everything.* But was he evil from the start? Or was it Eru's bad parenting that drove him away from "the narrow path"?



* (Well, if you believe the Bible, God will unleach the Apocalypse to destroy the world.. Hmmm..Tricky one. )

Good and evil don't exist anyway. In the end, it's the victor who writes history and in that history the victor is 'good' and the enemy 'evil'. In JRRT's works, as the Elfies, Dwarfies and Humans win the house, they're 'good'.

But if we look at it from the Orc's point of view, it's the Elfies and Co who are evil.


I think those greedy, arrogant, etc. Elfies were just the F’anorians. The rest of the Noldor, particularly the House of Finarfin, were OK. Confer "House of Finw’" thread. And anyway, those greedy, arrogant ones aren't better than the humans at the end of the Third Age, really. Look at Denethor.

As for the complaining in LOTR : that's all Legolas's fault, really. Even since he sees the Sea, it's endless whining indeed. Not to mention his songs. Bweeerk.

At least the Elfies in the First Age were doing something.


He wasn't. I'll refer to the quotes/theories Olorin and I have posted somewhere in this thread not that long ago.

Melkor isn't evil, i think. He's considered to be evil. He just follows another plan, that's all. Just like Satan in the Bible, and Pinkie in "Pinkie and the Brain".

Eru didn't parent the Ainur, even. He created them and let them go their own way. Thank Eru that Melkor didn't get a spanking on the butt, otherwise we wouldn't have much of a story.

I don't think it was so much 'bad parenting' as Melkor using what had been given to him as a means to expand his power and knowledge. Now whether that is Eru's fault is another matter. But Eru brought the Ainur into being and they were not as we are, they were not men with their questioning, demanding minds, they were created by Eru to fulfil his plan by creating the Themes. At first they sang alone because they only had knowledge and understanding of that part of Eru from which each came. Their understanding grew and they 'increased in unison and harmony'. Not a bad start I would think. They are not yet itruly ndependent beings, not yet ready to be set free upon a world to mould and guide it. In gaining understanding and knowledge Melkor became aware of what he could gain and he craved power.

I suppose one could say that Eru should have explained things to Melkor but why? He was supreme. They were his creations, there to sing and make music and that was all they needed to know. None of the others seemed bothered by not having things explained in detail so maybe the fault was that Melkor was given too much knowledge to start with. But if Eru is infallible then do we suppose that Melkor's contribution was expected and as Olorin said earlier without evil how do we appreciate what is good?

Hmmm.... I've got my husband telling me about booking flights to Edinburgh, airport car park fees and B&Bs and my son talking about a documentary on ghosts and plasma screen costing less than he thought..... not conducive to focused thinking. So, apologies if nothing here make any sense.

Also..... (shutup about plasma screens! and no, I don't know where your homework diary is!) Melkor's fall into disgrace came about after the vision of the World was played before the Ainur. So he saw what Eru had planned and he coveted it. He wanted control of the world and everything in it, to be called Lord and be master over others.

About elves.... well, Feanor and his stupid oath started a whole mess of maggots. The elves should remember that when they start moaning about Men and dwarves. Tolkien himself admits that elves should not be seen as wholly good.


Letters

I have mentioned before about the elves 'hiding' and the difference in lifespan affecting how they live as compared to Men but Tolkiens words quoted in my previous post lead me to suspect that their influence was not confined to their own little worlds within ME but spread out into the rest of ME thus implying a selfish side to them. Did they see themselves as superior to Men? Did they want to be the artists and cultural leaders of the world? Did they look down their little elvish noses at Men? And as GrevRev pointed out they had the choice of staying or going to a nice little paradise so if they stay in ME why try and stop it evolving? Cake and eat it...... as Tolkien says.

I was asking.

The suggestion wasn't mine but what I saw as implied by Tolkien.

(edited by Vee)
(Hehehehehe, better Grevrev?)

Not all of them were like that. But that discussion does not belong in here. There are some of the F’anorians I do not like, but all in all, some of them were noble and good guys. Kicking Melkor's hiney where ever they could. They are just complicated, but aren't we all?

I think it's more like a computer game or even a program.

Eru can be considered as the master programmer. He's produced the game and the story. The game engine has been given the AI, which can be the Valar. It's like a football game where you choose your opponent and the difficulty level. Only, in this case, I think the AI somehow due to the inherent programming, sorts itself out, for the outcome is more likely or not, decided.... which is the victory of "good". But then again, for the "good" to be victorious, there has to be evil. Isn't it kind of fitting that Melkor, who was to face all the valar alone, was the mightiest and had a share of others' powers? Maybe, it was like "The Matrix". A program gone out of control. But then, even in the case of an operating system on your computer, a non-responding program is shut down by the "good" programs. I think Melkor was like this one program gone out of control.

Then comes the point direct interception of Eru. I think it's a case of debugging the program. The end result, in any case is to achieve the output. The output could be something expected or planned or something completely random. That'd depend on the programmer.

Like, Melkor started going off course. But Eru only used it to make his creation more beautiful.... He didn't "debug" in this case, but he merely "patched" it, to actually make the "bug" useful in improving the output.

I'm not sure how many people would understand what I just said.... Oh well. I guess I should have posted a month ago, when the thoughts were clear in my head.

It makes sense to me too. I never would have thought of it, but "patching" is really the perfect analogy. Eru didn't allow Melkor to change the outcome, but instead allowed him to alter the course in between, and the scenery as well.

Nice job, Floyd!

It is quite a good analogy, Floyd, to explain quite a difficult concept. As long as it is just an analogy, it does work.

OK, I'm gonna post this now, without reading the rest of the thread (yet) so I don't forget.

First of (and out of order) yes, IMHO, Eru watched the HoME unfold as it happened, despite knowing what was going to happen beforehand (and yet the choices were NOT predetermined. Deal with that.) I've read the Silmarillion several times, and while my memory fails me from time to time, I do have a pretty good idea of what happened. I still read it again two weeks ago, and undoubtedly will again if I'm still here to read it. For Eru, even more than for Aule or Feanor, the joy was in the creation and in watching it play out as it would, seeing what his Children would make of their free will when it was entirely up to them.

Now, I want it noted for the record that the following was asked (I almost didn't show up for this topic because I knew where it would lead me: )


It is my position (since to my knowledge Tolkien never declares his, though I haven't read the Letters; yes, I know, very naughty) that ME reflects Tolkiens Catholic faith in great measure. The previously quoted text from the Silmarillion where Eru speaks to Morgoth after the Music is ended is among my favorites from the Silmarillion, together with that part preceding it by two paragraphs,


I frequently lean on these passages as the best "justification" I've found for suffering.

In Morgoth (Melkor as we was then known) we see some interesting parallels with another figure. First, he was the mightiest and wisest of his brethren, in all things. Second, we see him take on qualities distinct from Eru as a result of his departure from Eru:



In other words, Melkor was like the other Valar in being created by and derived from Eru, but unlike them he separated himself from Eru in the service of his pride, and it is then, in the absence of Eru, that we see him corrupted to evil. Of course, if Eru IS purely good, to be absent from him would be to be absent from goodness as well, which can have only one result. On the subject of his later chastisement in front of the other Valar, and the potentially excessive harshness this entails, I would simple say that one, it served as an object lesson for the others, and two, it would have been very odd if after all of the discord Melkor created in Erus harmony, a discord Eru himself had to correct, no comment was made by him at the musics conclusion. That last case would set a very poor precedent indeed.

On the Valar as a group, I find them much more comprehensible from a Catholic perspective (lest I be accused of preaching, and for the sake of clarity, I am not a Catholic.) I can see definite parallels: Manwe=Michael, Varda=Mary, Eonwe=Gabriel (bearing in mind that Catholic theology often considers both righteous mortals and seraphs to be "Saints.") To what extent the others correspond I can't say, as I'm not familiar with the provinces assigned to the various Saints, but I do know that the early Catholic Church would "canonize" pagan deities to facilitate conversion.

So, predestination or free will? Yes. We see Melkor take a very active hand in "changing" the Ainulindale, but at the end Eru makes clear that his purpose and design has been in no sense altered. All that is altered is the particulars of how it is accomplished, and to what extent even that is done is known but to him. We also have the enigmatic but intriguing statement of Gandalf to Frodo that Bilbo was "meant" to find the Ring, "and not by its maker." This is usually taken to mean intervention by the Valar, but the Valar were always loathe to intervene in ME for fear of disrupting the Music, and even less so by the end of the Third Age since many held this was AFTER the part of the Music whose Being they beheld. It would be like walking through a minefield blindfolded, and they wanted no part of it. That, of course, leaves only Eru. Various choices, from Isildurs choice to take the Ring "as weregild for my father's death, and my brother's" (and this, of course, is a very Anglo-Saxon concept right out of the Volsungsaga) to the choice of Smeagol and Deagol to go fishing/swimming, to the choice of Bilbo to accompany the Dwarves when they decided to take back their patrimony (and what of Gandalfs choice to include Bilbo?) led to this event, yet the event was decreed regardless of those individual choices; they were but the means of execution, and if those choices had not been made different ones would have accomplished the same thing.

OK, I'll stop there, and abide by the Councils decree (no other alternative readily presents itself.) Besides, I have more reading to do....

A parallel I neglected, though I hardly exhausted them all. In that theology we have a war begun against heaven itself, in which the world is destroyed as something irrevocably corrupted (as in Arda marred) and replaced with a new earth free from that corruption, much like the Arda of the Second Music.

For the record, I'd say Eru is responsible for the creation of the concept of evil only in the Aristotelian sense: in establishing good, he creates a dialectic and the concept of his absence, and with it the absence of good (evil.) This of course remains hypothetical until he introduces beings distinct from himself and possessed of free will, but then we have a separate agency that may choose to embrace or reject the goodness he embodies, and thus good or evil respectively. In that sense, no, you can't have any polar quality without simultaneously creating, if only hypothetically, it's inverse.

No argument here; I'm just glad it passed the councils muster. I've been engaged in a rather involved religious debate at wotmania, where there are seemingly NO limits, and was afraid my perspective on what could be said on the grounds of real relevance and what was just proselytzing might have been totally warped. Thanks, V.

And for the Hawking info as well; it seems I'm not keeping up and will have to rectify that. I am a little curious how Hawking thinks this "leaking" is occurring; that might even tie into the other debate, as it covers a group citing Arps theories (which to my knowledge are purely scientific and take no religious position) about quasars being "white holes" (which I've always believed myself and don't find especially "revolutionary" but the reaction to Arp seems to be as if he said the sun set in the east.) It's about the only plausible explanation I can find for why quasars are soooo far away and sooooo bright (brighter than ANYTHING should be able to be.) Hmmm, a thought has occurred to me (RUNNNNN!) Maybe quasars are tachyon emitters; if matter entering a black hole approaches c as a limit, then perhaps matter leaving a white hole approaches it from the other direction. Just a thought, and I have to admit it's not really Tolkien (though I've always felt cosmology and metaphysics, which is really what we're discussing in "Erus thoughts," are inextricably linked.) OK, fire away at the armchair physicist.

I figure what extinguished of a few batches of dinosaur species in the way back time, was the blowback from a black hole which just happened to intersect the earth in its orbit. That thar high energy beam just frizzled their hair, feathers, flesh, and eggs, causing another bunch of species bite the dust.

I figure this happens every few million years, but its like the great earthquakes that occur on the Great Circle of Fire where I live, if it happens it happens; we humans can't do anything to stop it. The Lord's will be done.

Last I heard, the conclusion on what killed the dinosaurs was "inconclusive" though the existence of the Gulf of Mexico and a large impact crater in the Yucatan is pretty compelling evidence for a meteor strike. Blowback isn't impossible, though it's not my bet; that would take an awful lot of Hawking radiation, but there's enough matter in a stellar system it's tenable. I'm taking the Star Trek comment as a compliment, btw; tachyons are an established, if freaky, part of theoretical particle physics. And besides, I think the warp drive is tenable, too; you just have to generate an em field of sufficient intensity that nothing from the outside can get through, and then the laws of relativity don't apply to anything inside (or, more accurately, their "relative" motion to the rest of the universe is no longer problematic since they're no longer "connected" to it in any meaningful sense.) Not that any of this has anything to do with Eru at this point....

Yes Virginia, this thread has gone severely off-topic...

Tsk, everyone knows Santa lives in Lapland : Santa's village.

Why delete any posts in this thread ? They're at least interesting. I suggest you delete some posts in "who's next?" instead, before that thread starts getting popular again...

Morambar posted in Assignment 1...



I like this explanation. It is simple and believable.