Let's Talk Morgoth

[alatar]

Thanks to all for the kind words.

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

Suppose I have a cow, and a garden. Suppose further the cow defecated on a path in my garden. It is not a proper place for a cow to do the deed, and evaluation I may give the event would be ‘bad’. My further course of action may be manifold:

1. I may use the manure to dung the flowerbed and grow flowers
2. I may simply throw it away

It does not follow, though:

1. That I was obliged to use that particular ‘bad’ piece of manure for fertilization
2. That I was unable to grow flowers by other means if I threw it away, after all

That I take it up and use it for better purposes, thus ‘cleansing’ the paths in my garden back to original and producing more beauty through doings of my cow, is my glory

I assume that one could remove the manure from the garden, as if it had never happened. Or, next year, not allow the cow in the garden at all. Or plant a new garden with a fence and a 'no cow' rule. From a worm's POV, it would seem that the Gardener could have done something about the organic material, and if not, then either chose not to ("I'll work it into my glory") or could not do so ("I can't alter the cow's free will"). When the worm overhears the Gardener talking in the garden, and hears that the Gardener could completely destroy the garden, replant the garden, remove the manure, eat the cow, etc, and yet the cow gets back in again and does 'the deed' again, some worms may begin to doubt the Gardener's abilities or desires.

Anyway, as I know nothing of cows, but more about canines - especially one in particular that lives with us and is treated as if it were human (sigh)...when I go out into the backyard to clean it up, inevitably (and if there is a universal law, this may be it), I step in what we refer to as the dog's "business." Initially, I want to blame her, but really, it's my fault. I wasn't careful enough, I let the job go undone to where the odds of stepping on grass decreased, etc. I am ultimately responsible for the dog and where it does its business.

Surely God takes some of the responsibility for the business.

EDIT: point about freedom - when I gave my cow the freedom to walk my garden, I certainly counted for possibility it may do the thing in inappropriate place. That I hoped it would be a good cow, and not use the freedom I gave her to defecate there is, I believe, obvious.

A cow eats grass, and the waste product goes where? It's not like you would say, "hey, call the TV news! I think that my cow defecated!" You knew full well what the cow does, and assuming that you really know this cow, you also know that the chances of 'going in the garden' are high, yet you still let it in. Is the cow bad for doing what it must do? Is not the Gardener bad for placing the cow in the Garden then calling it not good for what is natural for the cow? Did the Gardener tell the cow not to do said deed? Did the cow understanfd?

Poor cow.

[Formendacil]

Great posts, davem and HerenIstarion! What I wanted to say, but couldn't/didn't.

Originally Posted by alatar

A cow eats grass, and the waste product goes where? It's not like you would say, "hey, call the TV news! I think that my cow defecated!" You knew full well what the cow does, and assuming that you really know this cow, you also know that the chances of 'going in the garden' are high, yet you still let it in. Is the cow bad for doing what it must do? Is not the Gardener bad for placing the cow in the Garden then calling it not good for what is natural for the cow? Did the Gardener tell the cow not to do said deed? Did the cow understanfd?

There is a major difference between a cow and a man, that of free will. It is the perennial problem of a parable: if you translate God to a man, what do you translate a man to? If to another man, then God loses the greater wisdom and power that He has over man. If to a lower life form, then man loses the free will which defines his relationship with God. A parable is an imprecise way of explaining things, intended not to be taken at 100% face value.

Originally Posted by alatar

Eru, knowing the future yet not changing the present to avoid said future, condemned multitudes to lives of pain, suffering and anguish. And I'm not talking about Eldar or Edain - what about the orcs? Assume not the originals, but your standard Third Age model. What chance does said orc have in regards to free will? Even, presumably, if an orc could be 'good,' it would be either cut down by its brethren or by the forces of good ("hey guys, wait! I'm on your side...")

Thanks a lot, Eru - guess that free will stuff is only for the pretty people.

Tolkien himself struggled with this- hence his perennial indecision as to their origins. Are they man, animal, vegetable, or mineral? Therefore, to bring up the orks is a rather invalid argument, and not quite pertinent to the discussion at hand. Unless unequivocal proof can be displayed about Tolkien's decision on the subject, it is like the Balrog wings debate: fascinating, with support for each and every opinion, but impossible to decide completely, and not much help in any other debate.

Originally Posted by alatar

Assume that the Christian God, who is stated to be Good, created me. Assume that I will end up in eternal punishment through my own free will as the evidence sufficient to win over my created brain is lacking. Assume that this God knows this. Why did he create me only to have me suffer for eternity? Given the choice, I would have asked not to be created. Is this god good or evil?

Would it be fair though, for a good God to treat the evil and the good the same? After all, justice is an essential component of goodness. Is it just, therefore, for God to treat an amoral, immoral, murderer-rapist who enjoyed his life to the fullest at the expense of others, with no thought of repentence, with exactly the same reward as child-saint who was poor, starved, and abused, but love with all his little heart?

Besides which, anyone who is truly evil is someone who REJECTS God entirely. Such a person could never live in Heaven because Heaven would be anathema to him. Death would change such a person's free will, because God abides by the rules that HE had put into place, and his free will would not allow him to accept a life in heaven, praising, thanking, and glorifying the God he had rejected.

Originally Posted by alatar

Same god promises land to a group of people. This land is currently occupied. The newcomers exterminate the occupants. Yet this God prohibits murder. But there obviously are exceptions....Is this god good or evil?

But God did not commit the murders, so how are we to know that he condoned them? He did not write the Book of Judges personally, so how do we know that he approved them? Wouldn't the author want divine approval for his people's takeover? Wouldn't that legitimize their right to it?

More importantly though, who are we to say that the Canaanites didn't deserve it when the Israelites came and slaughtered them? They weren't saints, they worshiped the same idols that God condemns again and again throughout the Old Testament, and that He repeatedly punishes the Israelites for worshipping.

My point is that there is a bit more to the situation than you seem to be making out...

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by Alatar

Assume that the Christian God, who is stated to be Good, created me. Assume that I will end up in eternal punishment through my own free will as the evidence sufficient to win over my created brain is lacking. Assume that this God knows this. Why did he create me only to have me suffer for eternity? Given the choice, I would have asked not to be created. Is this god good or evil?

emphasis mine

This was already answered by Formendacil, but I'd like to add up a tiny bit. See, per instance Descent into Hell by Lush, post #12. It is just another parable to back up Formendacil (i.e. God does not throw creature out of heaven, creature, as a consequence of its free will, withdraws itself out of it)

Another comment (to emphasized part of it) - the evidence the brain may lack or have in abundance is if not of no, but of minor consequence here. 'Inscrutable are...'. The built-in standards of what is Good (moral imperatives we've been discussing earlier) are the guidelines. The will is what counts, not intellectual ability or lack thereof, not physical prowess or lack thereof. 'Rich will not inherit the kingdom' does not necessarily imply literally rich, but may include intellectually rich, and rich with health etc etc.

This is seen through LoTR, see LotR -- Book 3 - Chapter 02 - The Riders of Rohan , post #3

do I write like an archivist, solemnly producing dry sheets of paper out of dusty shelves, ? Well, for those with lack of time to follow links, short summary:

A. Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another among Men. It is a man’s part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house

B. Yet in doubt a man of worth will trust to his own wisdom
C. 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

Mark you, that in B entry, wisdom does not equal intellect, or amount of information one is in possession of. It is rather knowledge of built-in moral imperative than empirical data. It does not imply also that those who make their living by those lines know there is Eru at all. And in a way, the lack of such knowledge glorifies their sticking by their credo even more.

cheers

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Therefore, to bring up the orks is a rather invalid argument, and not quite pertinent to the discussion at hand. Unless unequivocal proof can be displayed about Tolkien's decision on the subject, it is like the Balrog wings debate: fascinating, with support for each and every opinion, but impossible to decide completely, and not much help in any other debate.

I have to disagree with you there. Orcs are a part of Arda and are therefore relevant to any discussion concerning the nature of its ultimate Creator and His realtionship with good and evil. One might seek to explain them, but one cannot dismiss them.

The explanation most consistent with the theological and moral tone of the Legendarium, I suppose, is that Orcs were mere beasts or automatons, rather than a sentient and free-willed race of beings. But I have never been able to accept this proposition as it is wholly at odds with my conception of Orcs, particularly those whom we meet as individuals, as derived from Tolkien's published works.

And yet they do seem only to have limited free-will. There is no suggestion that Orcs were able to choose between good and evil, and indeed the clear indication is that they were unable to act in any way other than evilly.

Which does, I think, raise a valid question as to why Eru saw fit to countenance the creation, and continued existence, of a wholly evil race that had no opportunity of repentance (during their lives, at least).

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

I have to disagree with you there. Orcs are a part of Arda and are therefore relevant to any discussion concerning the nature of its ultimate Creator and His realtionship with good and evil. One might seek to explain them, but one cannot dismiss them.

The explanation most consistent with the theological and moral tone of the Legendarium, I suppose, is that Orcs were mere beasts or automatons, rather than a sentient and free-willed race of beings. But I have never been able to accept this proposition as it is wholly at odds with my conception of Orcs, particularly those whom we meet as individuals, as derived from Tolkien's published works.

And yet they do seem only to have limited free-will. There is no suggestion that Orcs were able to choose between good and evil, and indeed the clear indication is that they were unable to act in any way other than evilly.

What I was saying is that the orks cannot be presented as strong evidence in this argument one way or another, with regards to a forgiving/condemning Eru, because we do not know their origins and their degree of free will.

If they do not have free will, then how is it wrong/unjust to condemn them? And as you note, there is conflicting evidence about how free the orks wills are exactly. Even Tolkien couldn't make his mind up.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

What I was saying is that the orks cannot be presented as strong evidence in this argument one way or another, with regards to a forgiving/condemning Eru, because we do not know their origins and their degree of free will.

I would say that, on the basis of "pure" canon alone (ie the works published by Tolkien during his lifetime), the evidence points strongly towards Orcs being a sentient race with limited free will - ie lacking in the ability (or, at a stretch, the environmental conditions) to choose good.

You are, of course, free to dismiss Orcs as a factor in your thinking on this issue, but that does not make them irrelevant to the discussion, at least as far as those of us who have a reasonably settled view on the nature and origins of Orcs (based on the published works) are concerned.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

If they do not have free will, then how is it wrong/unjust to condemn them?

Well it certainly seems to me to be unjust to condemn them for something (their evil nature) which they have no choice in. Even assuming that they have the opportunity of redemption following their death, it is wrong that they should be condemned to a life of evil and brutality without having any choice in the matter. Thus I find it problematic that Eru should countenance such a thing.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Well it certainly seems to me to be unjust to condemn them for something (their evil nature) which they have no choice in. Even assuming that they have the opportunity of redemption following their death, it is wrong that they should be condemned to a life of evil and brutality without having any choice in the matter. Thus I find it problematic that Eru should countenance such a thing.

Okay, to put it another way, the origin of the orks is tied not only to the issue of whether they have free will or not, but also whether they have souls. More or less, I would say that it appears plain that if the orks have true free will, they must also have a soul. If so, then yes we come to a confusing muddle of whether it is just to condemn all orks as evil.

On the other hand, if orks do not have free will, and thus a soul, there is not problem in condemning them as evil, because they are essentially the same as animals, and not destined for eternity in any way, shape, or form.

[HerenIstarion]

Alatar, when you talk about orks which are not automata, I suppose you imply Shagrat and Gorbag (and also Ugluk and Grishnakh), are you?

How was the "built-in standard" removed?

In case of free-willed ork exeptions, it is not. They exhibit the standard - evaluating good and bad in a way similar to one elves or men would follow, labeling certain things bad and immediately ascribing them as inherent to their enemy:

The big fellow with the sharp sword doesn't seem to have thought him worth much anyhow – just left him lying: regular elvish trick

But, almost instantly, we're shown that in fact, they themselves, though acknowledging one, do not follow the code:

D'you remember old Ufthak? We lost him for days. Then we found him in a corner; hanging up he was, but he was wide awake and glaring. How we laughed! She'd forgotten him, maybe, but we didn't touch him-no good interfering with Her

Following after Pet Shop Boys I'm listening to at the moment, I may hum (as is a good feat for a deadnight chanter) under my nose 'it's a sin...'

See also All About Orks

[obloquy]

Would it be fair though, for a good God to treat the evil and the good the same? After all, justice is an essential component of goodness. Is it just, therefore, for God to treat an amoral, immoral, murderer-rapist who enjoyed his life to the fullest at the expense of others, with no thought of repentence, with exactly the same reward as child-saint who was poor, starved, and abused, but love with all his little heart?

Not every Christian believes that the reward for the "good" is Heaven and the punishment for the "bad" is Hell. This particular Christian happens to believe that it is more indicative of a loving, just god that he punishes the wicked by simply denying them life, rather than tormenting them.

Edit: Additionally, yes, it would be "fair" if that's how he chose to do it. He is the source of our sense of justice and fairness, and whether it is an inherent part of our creation or something we learn, it is based on his definition (and example) of justice. He has the ultimate say on the matter.

As far as the Tolkien-related side to this thread, alatar has sort of taken my torch and ran with it so I think I'll leave him to it.

[davem]

Originally Posted by SpM

Yet he can intervene - or so we are led to believe by incidents such as Bilbo's finding of the Ring and Gollum's fatal stumble at Sammath Naur.

Well, He had obviously foreseen His own intervention from the beginning, so it was not a spurof the moment decision....

Originally Posted by Alatar

Still, assume that I'm an average shmoe - no big sins, just choose the wrong side of the balrog wings debate, which ends up sending me to Hell. How can I assume that the god who sent me there was 'good?' I will spend a very finite drop of eternity in the 'choosing' phase, and the remainder in punishment. Great system. (by the by, no wings! )

This assumes that God would damn someone to eternal punishment for something trivial. I know there is a strand of extreme fundamentalist Christianity which says that rejecting Jesus as one's personal saviour will result in eternal damnation, but personally I think God is a lot smarter (as well as a lot more compassionate) than that, & that His judgement would be based on looking into the individual's heart. I would go so far as to say that the way some fundamentalists behave is enough to lead many to reject Christianity altogether, but I don't think God would base 'His' judgement on a decision made on those grounds. The 'god' that you have in mind here would,to put it bluntly, not be 'Good', & everything you've said about him would be valid. Personally I don't think God (or Eru) is like that...,

Your freedom to choose anything requires your actual existence - as I said. Yes, you could only end in Hell if you were brought into being, but equally, you could only find Heaven. If 'Hell' is not a place of eternal punishment, but rather of non-being, then you have a free choice - you may choose to accept God, or to reject Him & cease to exist - as you apparently would have wished rather than suffer eternal punishment. So, you do get to choose - you, not God choosing for you. You get to try it out first, make your decision & get the outcome you desire for yourself.....

Agreed about the rules. He told the Valar, "here's the game - have at it!" And though I would agree that Melkor may have changed someone's blueprint for Arda, he did not change Eru's unless Eru permitted the same.

Well, Eru handed over the blueprint but others were left to build what it depicted. There is a deeper question to be dealt with here: Was it necessary for all the suffering & struggle to be gone through as a way of bringing about Arda remade. Did Eru have to allow His Children to get all that stuff 'out of their systems', in order to 'grow up'? Certainly He intervenes, but only occasionally, & only to prevent absolute disaster. Certainly, when He does intervene it is both rare & reluctant. He seems to actually want His children to be free - even if great suffering results for them. Another question is whether that makes him callous, amoral, or extremely loving...

Originally Posted by SpM

Well it certainly seems to me to be unjust to condemn them for something (their evil nature) which they have no choice in. Even assuming that they have the opportunity of redemption following their death, it is wrong that they should be condemned to a life of evil and brutality without having any choice in the matter. Thus I find it problematic that Eru should countenance such a thing.

Why is this problematic. Orcs play their part in the cosmic drama & after death are able to see the truth & make a decision as to their moral stance & Eru's judgement of them would be based on that.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

Alatar, when you talk about orks which are not automata, I suppose you imply Shagrat and Gorbag (and also Ugluk and Grishnakh), are you?

Sorry, but can't remember to which I refer (and as Essex well knows, I still haven't reclaimed my books...). Weren't there orcs that were tired of war and desired to get out of Mordor, and another admonishes the one regarding rebel talk or sticking with their own kind (and not the wraths) or something?

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

But, almost instantly, we're shown that in fact, they themselves, though acknowledging one, do not follow the code:

They survive by being very pragmatic and individualistic. Why try to save the spider-food orc when it could only mean more losses? The Little Folk and Bree folk seem more than ready to allow someone else to fix the problem of Sauron - passing by the man on the side of the road, if you catch my allusion. And one might say that the other Free folk are only doing some heavy lifting as it is in their best selfish interests.

And with such a code there were no inter-Free folk wars, slayings, injustices, etc.

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

Following after Pet Shop Boys I'm listening to at the moment, I may hum (as is a good feat for a deadnight chanter) under my nose 'it's a sin...'

Ever hear the line from Depeche Mode's Strangelove, "...I give in, to sin, because I like to practice what I preach." One of my favorites.

[Ainaserkewen]

Originally posted by Hookbill, post #2
Many will say he represents Lucifer, Tolkien being Catholic and all that’s an understandable theory. I can sympathise with this theory in many ways, there are some similarities. Firstly he was a mighty spirit, like an angel, and he was the chieftain of them. Like Lucifer, who was a chief angel and is counted to have been given the greatest gifts of power, beauty and wisdom. As was Melkor.

I am told that Lucifer was a chief angel, yes, but of what? The Choir of angels...isnt that interesting. Perhaps a deliberate connection in religion.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Ainaserkewen, I'm not sure. I've not checked up on passages referring to Lucifer for a while. But I do not think so. Lucifer means "Son of the Morning", he was given power over the earth and its creatures. I do not think he was a quire angel (But please do correct me if I am wrong). I'm almost certain he was an Arch Angel, if not higher. I know he was once The TOP angel.

But back on topic.

The way i see this whole thing is that Morgoth/Melkor was from before the beginning of creation, going to be evil. There has to be an evil presence in the world, so that mankind (and indeed, elf kind) has a real choice. Between loving God as their creator and father, or rejecting him and turning to evil.

The Story of the Dwarves is where I feel this is most emphasised. Eru says something along the lines of, that if Aulé had left the dwarves as they were, then they would have been nothing more than Robots. Born with no knowledge of anything else than to love their creator. Free will is given, to decide between temporary happiness in Evil and eternal suffering thus, and eternal Happiness in God for a temporary period of suffering.
So, in conclusion, Melkor was made evil in order to give men and elves (and hobbits!) the chance to chose between good and evil. So that they could see the difference and have a real choice. That way, if they chose to love Eru, it is real love and not artificial and not forced.

That's what I think. Feel free to criticize.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by alatar

Also, to presume Eru's intervention diminishes the roles/sacrifices of Frodo et al.

Not if one assumes that Eru can only intervene indirectly and in circumstances where not to do so would result in the complete victory of those seeking to oppose his will notwithstanding the best efforts of those on the side of good. Although that still leaves open the question of whether the "hand of providence" at Sammath Naur fell within this "Rule" since, even if Sauron prevailed in the face of the best the endeavours of Frodo et al, the Valar could presumably still have sailed east and defeated him. Could it therefore be said to have represented a complete victory on Sauron's part?

Of course, if we do assume that Eru is bound by this "Rule" (whatever its extent) then it must have been self-imposed, since the existence of a being greater than him would run contrary to Tolkien's conception and portrayal of him.

Edit:

Originally Posted by Hookbill

So, in conclusion, Melkor was made evil in order to give men and elves (and hobbits!) the chance to chose between good and evil. So that they could see the difference and have a real choice.

This picks up an alatar's idea that Melkor's fall was part of Eru's plan for Arda. As I understand it, this is similar in some ways to some interpretations of the role of Judas in the Bible (although I am no expert). My problem with this is that it makes Melkor the "fall guy" and condemns him to an existence of evil and terrible suffering without him having any choice (ie free will) in the matter. Which seems at odds with the portrayal of Eru's apporach to creation and with the idea of him as a just and good God.

[Ainaserkewen]

Ainaserkewen, I'm not sure. I've not checked up on passages referring to Lucifer for a while. But I do not think so. Lucifer means "Son of the Morning", he was given power over the earth and its creatures. I do not think he was a quire angel (But please do correct me if I am wrong). I'm almost certain he was an Arch Angel, if not higher. I know he was once The TOP angel.

Like anything in the Bible, it is certainly up for deliberation. I don't, however, have exact references, though I'm sure if I ask I can get them.

It was a seminar I attended that preached the dangers of some music. Don't ask me what I thought of it, but one of the points was the Lucifer was "lead singer" of the angels. At its lowest levels, that means he was "Top angel". My point is that all this trouble in middle-earth and Melkor's upity-ness was started by singing. I'll try to find some referrences to back this up, but I do trust my original source.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Ainaserkewen

My point is that all this trouble in middle-earth and Melkor's upity-ness was started by singing.

It's the all the fault of 'Rock and Roll' again!

[davem]

My understanding is that as time wore on & the things predicted in the Music came more & more into being the Valar had less & less power to change things directly & were forced into being more & more 'passive. Hence, no direct intervention in the Third Age - they only comissioned the Istari. Added to this, the events of the Third Age are to usher in the time of the dominion of Men & the fading of the 'mythological' period. As to why Melkor's release was permitted, Osanwe Kenta goes into this (don't have it to hand at the moment) but I seem to recall that Manwe had set the time of his incarceration & so had to go along with what he had ordained, & had to give Melkor the chance of repentance which that incarceration was intended to offer. Manwe was,after all King of Arda, & for Eru to over rule him would have effectively humiliated him. So, Melkor's release & all taht followed from it was necessary,as Eru's intervention would not only have taken away Melkor's free will but Manwe's also.

Eru's intervention at the Sammath Naur is subtle, & the event may be seen as a fluke - Gollum simply overbalances - by those who wish to see it that way. So, the individuals - men basically - who will come to dominate the Fourth & subsequent ages, are granted even more 'freedom of choice' in that they don't have to believe in Eru at all. A blatant intervention would have taken that freedom away. So Eru intervenes subtly. Obviously a direct intervention by the Valar themselves in the form of an invasion force would not only have taken that freedom away it would also have increased the likelyhood of they themselves being taken for Gods & becoming objects of worship themselves by men -hence the likelihood of polytheism becoming the religion of Middle earth, rather than monotheism. What I mean is that Monotheism as an idea would have been less likely to arise at all.

As to Melkor, certainly Eru would have known the coices he would make & the effect those choices would have on Middle earth, but he wasn't created to rebel, merely with the capacity so to do - but so were all the other Ainur.

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.

The Ring springs to mind here - if Sauron doesn't get it back & someone else claims it we end up with another Dark Lord. It seems, maybe, that there is a tendency for Dark Lords to be produced...

I do wonder where that 'tendency' originated...