...

[rpassmor]

n/a

[rpassmor]

n/a

[Harperella]

You are basically stating the problem of evil in Christianity. If god is omnipotent and omniscient, how is it that he can create an evil being, or even one with free will?

In the case of Iluvatar, the problem is not quite as clear, since Tolkien never ascribes these two qualities to him, but the problem is similar. If Iluvatar made Melkor with a certain nature, how is it Melkor's fault to follow that nature? I think the answer lies in Tolkien's view of evil.

In Tolkiens writings we almost always find evil as a corruption of good. The orcs are made from twisting and corrupting elves, trolls are a corruption of Ents. Evil has not the power to create, but merely to twist to another end. Thus it is with Melkor, who was given the greatest talents and gifts for use in the creation song of the universe, but chose to squander those gifts on a song of his own devising that would ultimately cause a rift that becomes good/evil.

But didn't Iluvatar see this? Why didn't he prevent it? Who knows? Iluvatar is an even slipperier fish than Jehovah. We have very little information on his nature.

--Harperella

[Tamirien]

A common theme throughout Tolkien's writing is that of fate. "... it was chance if chance you could call it ..."

The thing is, and feel free to discuss/disagree ... you cannot have free will and fate. They are dichotomous concepts. At best with free will you can predict an outcome based on the choices made all going a certain way. If the choices are different then the outcome will be different. Kind of a "if he moves here then this move becomes available" sort of thing.

With fate, though, an outcome is preordained. In Tolkien's writings the good people had choice to take up the burden or leave it. But to get them to that choice, the evil people/things had to be manipulated. That manipulation has to go all the way to the top.

[rpassmor]

n/a

[rpassmor]

n/a

[Andeon]

thats all I ask...

as to the point of the thread, its an interesting (and not particularly surprising) question you bring up, one i've heard in a variety of venues (and not just religion - if you can ever slog your way through frankenstein, a lot of the same ideas are posited there...but its an excruciating book, if you ask me)

#1 - Melchor/Morgoth's innate nature as created by Illuvator does not, as far as I'm concerned, exonerate his wrongdoing. point being, Morgoth was entrusted with a power, and a place in Illuvatar's grand design...according to the text you quoted, Morgoth was dissatisfied with Illuvatar's pace (the impatience bit) and what not else, and so corrupted Illuvatar's design with his own ideas. And, in virtually every religion I'm aware of with a God-like figure, when you attempt to usurp God's design with your own will, you have committed a wrong.

Now, I'm pretty sure Illuvatar wasn't particularly surprised by morgoth's actions, or worried that morgoth would actually unravel his purpose for creation. But, I would argue against the idea that morgoth was MADE to fail. Morgoth, it sounds like, had his own reason, his own motives, for his own failure, and whatever elements of it that illuvatar created that may have contributed, it was ultimately the *why* of morgoth's deviating from the plan that becomes his judgement as evil.

which brings me to my second point, that of pre-destination (redundant? what is destination without the pre- I wonder?)
Sadly, anyone who wants a poorly explicated, but otherwise fairly on point discussion about free-will vs destiny, should watch the Matrix Reloaded. I know, I know, most people didn't like it all that much, and the concept of pre-destination is covered, i'll admit, poorly - but they got at least one part right, and if you expand on certain poorly communicated ideas, you get a better sense of where I, at least, stand on destiny vs free-will.

destiny is sorta like knowing the world without time. All events have happened - you know which decisions people made, which outcomes they created by their decisions. The impulse, I know, is to believe that the value of making that decision is undermined by knowledge of the outcome, but honestly, I've never understood that point. The choice still has to be made, and the reasons for it are entirely your own, unless you subscribe to the idea that all conscious decisions are FORCED by previous experience. So, when the oracle tells Neo "You didn't come here to make the choice. You've already made it. You're here to understand WHY you made it..." What I feel she's saying, is that it isn't the choice you made, or the outcome of it, that determines the quality of your choice. its the *reason* you chose to do what you do, your *motive* is the determinant of your quality, not the outcome of your choice (which you have little, if any control over)...not even the choice itself (as you're often still limited in what you *can* choose to do based on time available, resources, education, etc)...the only thing you can *truly* call your own in decisions made throughout your life is *why* you chose to do the things you did. What was your priority - your hope? your expectation?

think of *destiny* as being able to see history from the end of time...but knowing that each event whose outcome is already finished, the person making that choice had to make that choice for reasons that were entirely their own, and THAT is where good and evil lie, so I think, for the moment...

[rpassmor]

n/a

[Andeon]

my arguments for any case start to unravel, as I'm far less familiar with the LOTR lore than many here...

but the case I'll make, is that at one level it depends, like I said, on *why* each of them chose to do what they did. the father of dwarves did one thing, morgoth did one thing; it is possible that tolkien presented motive for each, and in their motive lay their just judgement...of course, its equally possible, being as dicey and difficult a question as it is, that tolkien himself might not have understood the reasoning behind it, but, in the manner of great writers, wanted to ask the question, perhaps without ever coming to an answer, to try and better understand morality as it applies to us

*shrugs* who knows

i guess my point is is that at least some of your confusion, some of your question, seems to hinge on assuming that what (hurin?) the father of dwarves did and what morgoth did was equal, and, i'm not sure that's true

but, I think i'll wave off at this point, not really having any literary background on this question...it was only while the discussion covered more generic topics like predestination and the general responsibility (if any) of a creator towards its created that I felt comfortable making comments

but, as a final point, I'll say, its a good question to ask...an even better question to keep asking - says something about the nature of being human, to wonder where right and wrong lay, and what, if any, responsibility a creator has to it's created (and of course, vice versa)

[Lindorieh]

Morgoth WAS good:

"And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, for can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devisings of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined."

From the Ainulindale, in The Silmarillion

[Andeon]

nicely quoted, but I'm not sure that statement proves that Morgoth was good - I think it only proves that Illuvatar's plan cannot suffer from Morgoth's evil. Morgoth's personal choice to defy the will of illuvatar in favor of his own image for creation is what makes Morgoth evil, would be my own determination - the fact that morgoth's evil act cannot undo Illuvatar's plan is just evidence that Illuvatar can provide free will, the capacity for his creation's to fail, without really worrying about whether their failure will affect the purpose and nature of his (it's?) creation

[Lindorieh]

No only does Morgoth not foil Illuvatar's plan, he actually makes it better! That is why, ultimately, he is "good".

[`Tinki`]

How many sci fi shows are they where the Hero and his companions come across a race of people on a distant planet who seem to be idylic but really show they have not exercised CHOICE in their lives. That is always considered a sad state of affairs to witness.

To have choice, one must have more than one element to choose from. As a Christian and trying to interpret Biblically, here is my take on this.

An all knowing God Creates. Thats part of who He is and what He does. Valar are much like angels, They are not a Creating class. They are a serving class. (The books here seem to vary about that part). They have free will however. Pride enters and then an angel begins to think and act as if they could do just as well as God. That is a no no, a fallen state. Sin (meaning a transgression of a law) if you will. Wasnt there before, now it is. Not being a creating class, yet creating a polar opposite of good. Evil is what we call it.

Does the Almighty wring His hands knowing that a new venue comes into existance called evil? No, He knew it must exist from the beginning or choice will never come into being. Without choice, a living being is nothing more than a bio robot. Hence no mention of a scandelous uprising in the uttermost heavens over this matter. No cataclysmic restructuring of creation because of the entry of evil.

Does Iluvatar like that evil is now a player in His creation? No indeed, but being Omniscient He knows it has to have its position. The far opposite of Iluvatar is now Melko. Each are at extreme ends from each other. One is perfectly good and one is perfectly evil. Now the standards of choice are in effect.

Who is now in control? Iluvatar is Omnipotent, Melko is a fallen Valar. Melko is under the grand control of Iluvatar, but is left to implement his deeds to make that new thing called choice have some substance.

the peoples of middle Earth both bloom and wilt based on the choices they each make. It is now a very hard existance. Choices now have real meaning. People live and die locked in this grand scheme. Only Iluvatar knows how it will end.

And so goes life as we know it. We go from choice to choice mostly blindly not knowing full outcomes. Evil or Good or inbetween. Now we might see it as a "tool" to forge and refine the lives of the rest of creation. Iluvatar is the perfect Good and wants all to see and choose what He offers. And on the opposite side Melkor is doing the same thing in reverse so to speak. Instead of being what he was created for, he became a "tool" to implement choice and by his own choice he became the tool.

Will evil ever become a shade of good? Cant happen. Useful in a certain way, but never good. Basically a gauge of sorts to show the full spectrum of possibilities. Will those in Middle Earth choose good over evil? Thats what the books are about, written by a man who had a very great grasp of the workings of Christianity he believed in.

EDIT; Can Melko and Iluvatar work with each other, or better put, can Melko draw any thing from Iluvatars reserves to do his thing? NO. Dark and Light cannot coexist. Dark puts out light and light makes dark flee. there is nothing at all in common with good-evil. Melko chooses to do his own thing and therefore cannot draw from any wisdom of Iluvatar. He is left to invent new evils as that is who he now is.

[Lindorieh]

Wow, Tinki, I think you've hit the nail on the head! Evil HAS to exist or else we would not have the choice of free will. We would be robots.

Our lives have meaning because of the choices we make. Tolkien may have made it more explicit in his fiction, more "black and white", but I really think he was trying to work out the same questions and issues we have in RL.

[`Tinki`]

"And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, for can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devisings of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined."

From the Ainulindale, in The Silmarillion

Which sums up my post above. Melkor made a choice to enter evil. Free will allows that. Iluvatar is Omniscient. Think about what that means. He knows beginning and end and every scrap of knowing in between. He would have known evil would have to enter somewhere in history even before He created the Valar. He created the Valar with that thing called free will, which is the soil from which choice springs.

That explains "uttermost source in Me" (I provided the Cap on Me.) Melko could not have known the fullest extent of his choice when he made it. Nor has he since as he was shown to always be scheming up new evils. He cannot be shown as good in any amount because of his choice. He cannot be shown as good simply because he didnt know the fullest implications of what he chose. He cannot be shown as good because though evil needed to come to be, by him it did.

Iluvatar cannot be "Good" if He shows any participation in evil at all. When one looks at things in the purest state, middle ground does not have much if any significance in ones thinking. It was other Valar who interacted with Melkor after the fall, not Iluvatar. for Iluvatar to interact with Melkor would mean interacting with evil which He cannot do. He was strictly separate from that.

EDIT; And since Tolkien was living in our present world and interpreted the meaning of life much like many did during his time and even our time, he drew on his "religion" to inspire a grand story and fleshed it out with the nuances of character, of prose, of choices, of struggles. And we readers can only interpret with thinking as is common to mankind. Or in other words, We should understand his work as we are faced with very similar values and struggles.

LAST EDIT: Though evil needs to be in order to facilitate these things mentioned, its glorification is not a good thing. Hence, among other things,why our kin chat, if conducted according our charter rules, should reflect the same posture.