Quote:
|
Originally Posted by alatar
Agreed. Where do non-theists fit in (i.e. do not reject God as they do not think that there even is a god)?
Not to debate Christianity too much, but the concept of 'works' and 'purging' negate the need for Grace (and therefore the sacrifice of Christ).
|
I would put non-theists with all others. A separate category for them is unnecessary.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by alatar
That's called 'univeralism.' Is that a Roman Catholic doctrine? I would contend that that's not found in the Christian Bible.
And what worse torture for Melkor! After fighting your whole life against Eru, Manwe etc, you now are forced to make nice and join every else in Paradise ("Sorry about the sister thing, Turin. Sorry about the sword thing at the Dagor Dagorath, Morgoth. <kisses and hugs>").
|
I think you might be misinterpreting what I said. I did NOT say that everyone will get into Paradise, only that everyone has CHANCE. It is NOT Catholic dogma that everyone will kiss, make up, and go to heaven, but Catholic doctrine does not say that people will automatically be condemned to hellfire for having been born before Jesus, in an un-evangelised society, etc, etc. Nor will people who live in accordance with God's law as best they are able, such as non-Catholic believers (ie. Jews, Protestants, Muslims, et. al) see their efforts go to waste.
That said, ultimate judgement falls on God, as does the exercise of His mercy. I do not think that all will granted mercy, but the condemnation is greater on those who KNEW what was expected of them, and still did wrong.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by davem
Of course, this opens up another can of worms - if Melkor hadn't rebelled, & thus created an alternative to Eru's divine plan, would one of the other Ainur have rebelled instead? What I mean is, Melkor's rebellion sets out an alternative & therefore introduces choice into the 'game'. At that point the Ainur have to decie whose wide they are on. If Melkor hadn't done that, would one of the other Ainur have started wondering about 'alternatives' & hence become 'Dark Lord' instead.
|
I would have to say "No. It was not NECESSARY for Arda that one of the Ainur fall and become the Dark Lord."
Even had Iluvatar gone ahead and made Arda, and none of the Ainur had rebelled, there would still be free will for the Children of Iluvatar. There would still be rules that could be broken.
The exercise of free will would still be necessary to chose to obey divine law, or to reject it in favour of self-gratification. The difference is that there would be no mighty tempter, no Dark Lord whose goal was to spread evil. Therefore, evil would not be so prevalent in Arda as it was with Melkor, and it would not have had the same dominance over Man and Elf that it does.
The possibility of rejecting Eru and His laws would remain, but it would be a much less likely thing to happen, without someone pushing it, and corrupting the matter of Arda to proneness towards discord and chaos.
Remember, this is Arda MARRED, in Tolkien's own words. Therefore, that implies that there was, or was intended to be, an Arda UNmarred. Therefore, in Iluvatar's original plan, there should have been NO Dark Lord, thus if Melkor had not gone bad, it would not have been necessary for someone else to step up to the Dark Lord plate.