Let's Talk Morgoth

[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.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by obloquy

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.

A Catholic who knows and believes what his/her church teaches does, including both myself and the good professor, but that's hardly the point. If there is any point, it is that this is where I am coming from in writing what I have.

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! )

Well, at least we agree on the Balrog wings. You have a hope of salvation!

Okay, I'm just joking!!!

Or perhaps, not quite...

Hope. There is always the HOPE of salvation, the belief that a merciful God will forgive. The only person to whom heaven is totally and utterly denied is to he who utters rejects God. To all others, there is the hope of heaven, and the hope not ending up in Hell. This is the concept of divine mercy, which goes hand in hand with that of divine justice.

After all, if only the truly unrepentant go to Hell, then surely only the great saints can be said to have come close to achieving Heaven. Here is where the Catholic dogma of Purgatory comes in. Purgatory is the place of PURGING, of cleansing the soul so that it is cleaned of sin and ready for Heaven.

No person will be condemned to Hell for not having had the opportunity to join the Church (primitives, people who never heard of it, unborn babies, people before Christ), nor will those who have tried to lead a good life according to what they know and/or believe (Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Proddies, atheists, etc... )

No offence is intended by the above, just a more or less blanket statement that Catholics believe that all people who try to lead a good life have a real hope of Heaven. Even Balrog-Wingers!

Perhaps along the same lines one can view the orks.

Supposing that the average ork, having never heard anything of good, having been trained by birth and genetics to do evil, and whose entire environment is one that encourages evil, is brought before Eru in judgement. What then? If you consider Iluvatar to be one and the same as God (the premise on which I am basing more or less all of my arguments thus far), then would Iluvatar condemn the ork to eternal hellfire?

I personally think that Iluvatar would look at the ork's life, at how he lived, and then look deep into his soul. Iluvatar then learns whether or not the ork rejects His forgiveness and mercy, or whether it rejects it.

(Remember that this is in the afterlife, beyond the circles of the world after the destructio of Arda, so the ork is no longer blinded by prejudices of any sort, by the constraints of his physical form, or anything of that nature. His choice is completely his own, not influenced by any factor).

If the ork accepts forgiveness, then comes Purgatory, and the "Purging" of the ork's soul, to the point it the once-ork is now in an Elf-state, and able to join in singing Iluvatar's praises in Arda Remade.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

It would have invloved direct forcible removing of ability = direct suspense of free will = against the rules Eru sets himself = can not be done

I am sure that he could have come up with suitably indirect interventions to achieve the same aim. After all, his interventions in the Third Age effectively denied Sauron of all his abilities without requiring direct action against Sauron himself.

Originally Posted by davem

I still say that Eru's (rare) interventions are to prevent absolute disaster, to pull Middle earth back from the brink.

Well, I would say that Melkor's tainting of Arda was pretty disastrous. As I recall, he never intervened once to obstruct Morgoth's various attempts at world domination, whereas he intervened a number of times to foil Sauron's plans. Is this favouritism, or were the inhabitants of Arda somehow less well equipped to deal with Sauron themselves than they were with Morgoth?

Originally Posted by davem

How much absolute freedom of choice does any race (or individual) actually have. The freedom of choice of every individual is limited by circumstances.

Yes, free will is necessarily constrained by circumstances, physical geography, environment etc. But the limitation on the Orcs' freedom of choice goes much further than this. They appear to have been denied the opportunity to choose good under any circumstances. If it was just down to their upbringing, I would still expect a small, but significant, proportion of Orcs to reject evil, just as some brought up in a moral and caring environment will nevertheless turn bad.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

I personally think that Iluvatar would look at the ork's life, at how he lived, and then look deep into his soul. Iluvatar then learns whether or not the ork rejects His forgiveness and mercy, or whether it rejects it.

Well that's fine for the putative good Orc after he has died. But he still has to behave evilly, and suffer accordingly, throughout his life - which (Eru's perspective notwithstanding) will seem a very long time to him.

Perhaps it's because I have no firm belief in the afterlife that I find it difficult to accept that a life of (inescapable) brutality and suffering is acceptable as long as one can look forward to redemption in the hereafter. But it does seem to me from what you are all saying that Eru places greater value on the afterlives of the beings of Arda than on their actual lives. And he seems not to value non-sentient (ie soulless) beings at all.

[davem]

Originally Posted by SpM

Well, I would say that Melkor's tainting of Arda was pretty disastrous. As I recall, he never intervened once to obstruct Morgoth's various attempts at world domination, whereas he intervened a number of times to foil Sauron's plans. Is this favouritism, or were the inhabitants of Arda somehow less well equipped to deal with Sauron themselves than they were with Morgoth?

How would you have wished Him to intervene against Morgoth - given that there was no 'quick fix' option (ie destroying of a Ring)? It seems to me that the difference between his direct intervention in the Third Age & his non-intervention in the First is that the Valar were strong enough to deal with Morgoth themselves, & it was a battle of opposing forces. The result did bring devastation to most of Beleriand as a consequence, though. In the Third Age, no one individual could have taken the Ring to the Fire & cast it in of their own free will. Hence it was a matter of Eru stepping in & achieving the Quest, or allowing Middle earth to be taken over by Sauron or his replacement. Eru intervenes because no-one else can do the task at hand.

Yes, free will is necessarily constrained by circumstances, physical geography, environment etc. But the limitation on the Orcs' freedom of choice goes much further than this. They appear to have been denied the opportunity to choose good under any circumstances. If it was just down to their upbringing, I would still expect a small, but significant, proportion of Orcs to reject evil, just as some brought up in a moral and caring environment will nevertheless turn bad.

Surely the Orc will be judged with the very constraints you point out in mind. Less would be expected of the Orc than of a man, Elf or Hobbit. In other words, because of their more privileged position, & the fact that 'goodness' would be a far easier prospect for members of those races, they would have to struggle just as hard (relatively) as Orcs.

Perhaps it's because I have no firm belief in the afterlife that I find it difficult to accept that a life of (inescapable) brutality and suffering is acceptable as long as one can look forward to redemption in the hereafter. But it does seem to me from what you are all saying that Eru places greater value on the afterlives of the beings of Arda than on their actual lives. And he seems not to value non-sentient (ie soulless) beings at all.

Well, we're speaking about Middle earth here, so 'a life of (inescapable) brutality and suffering is' (perhaps) 'acceptable as long as one can look forward to redemption in the hereafter'.

As to Eru placing greater value on afterlives than on lives the only difference between the two is the presence or absence of a hroa...

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

It seems to me that the difference between his direct intervention in the Third Age & his non-intervention in the First is that the Valar were strong enough to deal with Morgoth themselves, & it was a battle of opposing forces.

Presumably, however, if the worst had come to the worst and Sauron had regained the Ring and extended his dominion over the entirety of Middle-earth, the Valar would have been just as capable of defeating him. Did Eru simply want to avoid the destruction that Beleriand had suffered in consequence of just such a thing happening in the First Age?

But surely Eru would have foreseen the damage that Beleriand did suffer in the First Age. Assuming that he did, why did he not take steps to prevent this by means of the simple expedient of (indirectly) ensuring that the Valar did not release Morgoth once they captured him. He would have foreseen that Morgoth had no intention of repenting.

Well, we're speaking about Middle earth here, so 'a life of (inescapable) brutality and suffering is' (perhaps) 'acceptable as long as one can look forward to redemption in the hereafter'.

The Orc still has to suffer more, with no choice in the matter, in consequence of the simple fact that he happened randomly to be born an Orc. Or perhaps being born an Orc is not a random event ...

[alatar]

I would not agree that Eru directly intervened during the Third Age; that's seems a bit overkill. He could have jumped in the game many times during the 'Morgoth years,' yet did so only rarely. When he did intervene, it was for some big thing like changing the layout of Arda.

Just what does divine intervention mean in regards to free will and playing by the rules? Manwe et al should have let Arda burn as eventually Eru would have had to jump in. What does this mean in regards to faith and personal responsibility? If I can force the hand of Eru ("here Sauron, here's your Ring back...okay Eru, do your stuff"!), what does this say about Eru's status/power? And what faith do I need if I know that Eru will only let the game go so far before joining in to catch me up. Was then Melkor right to oppose this thinking? How can one grow if not tested to the limit? I have to 'do my job' as I'm never sure if the eagles are coming or not.

Did not the Valar, who could have easily defeated Sauron, send the Istari so that they would not have to get involved directly? Wasn't that one of the problems with the Elves (direct intervention) where good intentions led to a lot of strife? Eru/Manwe/something may have at most nudged things along a bit, but that would be the extent of 'divine intervention.' Could Eru's intervention be the creation of Hobbits, of which two end up taking down Sauron?

Gandalf, of the same kind as Sauron, was permitted only to use his powers when absolutely necessary - as stated previously, usually to allow for fair game play (Gandalf the referee? ) - yet I guess that Eru can have free rein in ME (then again, it's his so...). Saruman was a contender for the seat, yet was destroyed by beings of ME, not Valar nor Eru.

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

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Hope. There is always the HOPE of salvation, the belief that a merciful God will forgive. The only person to whom heaven is totally and utterly denied is to he who utters rejects God. To all others, there is the hope of heaven, and the hope not ending up in Hell. This is the concept of divine mercy, which goes hand in hand with that of divine justice.

Agreed. Where do non-theists fit in (i.e. do not reject God as they do not think that there even is a god)?

Originally Posted by Formendacil

After all, if only the truly unrepentant go to Hell, then surely only the great saints can be said to have come close to achieving Heaven. Here is where the Catholic dogma of Purgatory comes in. Purgatory is the place of PURGING, of cleansing the soul so that it is cleaned of sin and ready for Heaven.

Not to debate Christianity too much, but the concept of 'works' and 'purging' negate the need for Grace (and therefore the sacrifice of Christ).

Originally Posted by Formendacil

No person will be condemned to Hell for not having had the opportunity to join the Church (primitives, people who never heard of it, unborn babies, people before Christ), nor will those who have tried to lead a good life according to what they know and/or believe (Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Proddies, atheists, etc... )

No offence is intended by the above, just a more or less blanket statement that Catholics believe that all people who try to lead a good life have a real hope of Heaven. Even Balrog-Wingers!

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>").

Anyway, I would have to say that Eru was not a universalist (if there is such a word) in that not all end up in Paradise. All may have the opportunity to go, yet free will allows for some not to go. Free will = choice. I've left the orcs out of all of this as we have yet to pin down the extent of their choices.

Orcs and other baddies go to the Void, and others go to some other afterlife. After Dagor Dagorath, not sure where all of the baddies will end up, but I'm sure that it won't be a party. Nonexistence?

Is the Dagor Dagorath the 'last chance to repent?' At that time can everyone elect to change sides, and after the big game, share the fate of the side of their choice? Would this pre-game time be when good-natured orcs ("he killed the villagers before he sat down to eat them - there's a mark in the plus column...") turn to Eru and by their choice are given some kind of redemption? Do they become Elves again?

[Formendacil]

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.

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.

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.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Maedhros

I would like to know how can you be so sure that it was Eru's intervention and not just mere luck.

You can't - that's the point. If you could know definitely one way or the other it would have a too deterministic effect on your freedom of belief.

And did Melkor really rebelled?
Ilúvatar gave him the powers and the freedom to use them as he saw fit. It was his right to act as he saw fit, as where the other Ainur.

No, it wasn't his right to act as he saw fit - certainly he had the ability to do as he saw fit, but being able to do something is not the same thing as having the right to do it. The Nazis were able to murder 6 million jews in the death camps, but I don't think anyone (in their right mind) would argue that they had a right to do it. He was created to serve. Any powers he had came from Eru & were given with the intention that he would use them in His service. Melkor misused his 'power'. Its like, if I let you use my car to take a sick friend to the hospital, & you dump the person by the roadside, sell the car & go on holiday with the proceeds. Being in possession of the car means you have the ability to do that, but you certainly wouldn't have the right to do it.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

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.

You've sidetracked me into wondering whether, because there is no Me Bible or Quran, 'Good' & 'evil' have to manifest in rather 'extreme' forms so that they're quite plain & understandable to everyone. There seems to be something of an absence of theologians arguing over the minutiae of their subject in Me. People only have what's in their hearts, a kind of 'innate' understanding of what is 'Good' & what is 'evil' & their experience of good & evil in the world - ie no Ten Commandments, no clearly set out 'rules', no religious imperatives (accept Jesus as your personal saviour or Else!, accept Muhammad as the final prophet of God or Else!, etc etc)

What I mean is the inhabitants of Me have to come the 'Truth' through personal judgement based on their experiences, not by accepting or rejecting the 'word of God'.

This is pure speculation & has just occurred to me, so I'm not it makes complete sense...

[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

What I mean is the inhabitants of Me have to come the 'Truth' through personal judgement based on their experiences, not by accepting or rejecting the 'word of God'.

This is pure speculation & has just occurred to me, so I'm not it makes complete sense...

Makes sense to me, but you might want to get a second opinion as I may be nuts...

Anyway, regarding relevation: The elves had direct access to the 'divine,' and so they have no need for faith. Galadriel was in Valinor, so what are the chances that she may have doubts regarding the existence of Manwe et al? As far as she is concerned, the Valar are 'cousins.' She knows what will happen if she were to be slain, and also what awaited her when she took the last ship.

Orcs are basically smart animals - as we have not yet produced a valid argument that would allow for them to have free will - and so there is no need for revelation. As far we know, when orcs die they become worm food. No afterlife - nothing. There is the possibility that as they are on the 'evil' side that they may suffer some punishment after all is sung and done, but this is mere speculation.

Men (and Hobbits) are somewhere in the middle. In the past there has been revelation to certain individuals, and purportedly one man (Eärendil) made a sacrifice to redeem the world or something. The elves have provided information (second hand) yet estrangement has placed doubts. The Enemy also has muddied the waters regarding Eru, the other divines, etc.

During a golden age, men were much closer to the 'source,' yet this did not remove all doubts. As the island containing evidence regarding the same was drowned in a flood, information is scant and sketchy.

Also, for men the afterlife is uncertain. Even the elves, assuming that their information is correct, do not know what happens, though the oldest tales tell of man leaving the confines of Arda, something that the other races cannot do. Melkor has added fear to this information.

Due to past screw-ups wih the elves, the Valar avoid direct contact with men, and so any additional revelation is indirect and at times open to interpretation.

So it would seem that men, having no certain knowledge or revelation, are required to take leaps of faith. One can choose to be like the elves and believe that it's all true, or live like an orc, figuring that a worm's gullet is the final destination.

I assume that this was deliberate on JRRT's part.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by alatar

Orcs are basically smart animals - as we have not yet produced a valid argument that would allow for them to have free will - and so there is no need for revelation.

I would have thought that the behaviour exhibited by the likes of Shagrat, Gorbag, Ugluk, Azog and the Great Goblin, not to mention the existence of "quasi-independent" Orcish colonies and the development of an Orcish culture of sorts (songs, distinctive weaponry etc), provide a valid basis for arguing that they (or some of them at least) were higher than animals and had a degree of free will, whether or not one actually accepts that argument.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by davem

You've sidetracked me into wondering whether, because there is no Me Bible or Quran, 'Good' & 'evil' have to manifest in rather 'extreme' forms so that they're quite plain & understandable to everyone. There seems to be something of an absence of theologians arguing over the minutiae of their subject in Me. People only have what's in their hearts, a kind of 'innate' understanding of what is 'Good' & what is 'evil' & their experience of good & evil in the world - ie no Ten Commandments, no clearly set out 'rules', no religious imperatives (accept Jesus as your personal saviour or Else!, accept Muhammad as the final prophet of God or Else!, etc etc)

I would say that, to a certain extent, Arda DOES have Bible/Quran of sorts: the Valar, in specific, Manwe and Mandos.

Think about what the Bible is to Christians: God's inspired words and laws, given to his prophets and apostles, put into written form.

Think about what the Quran is to Muslims: God's inspired words and laws, spoken to the Prophet Muhammed, put into written form.

God (Eru's) inspired words and laws in Arda do not need to be put into written form because there are living (and undying) receptacles of His words and laws, namely the Valar, especially Manwe and Mandos. Why write down what is contained, perfect, in a mind with speech?

The Elves, living in Valinor as those with the written word did, had no need. And once they came back to middle-earth and spread the tengwar, they were in rebellion, and not likely to write up the Gospels of Manwe and Mandos. This tendency then gets passed on to the Numenoreans, and all others who inherit the true knowledge of the Valar.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Alatar

The elves had direct access to the 'divine,' and so they have no need for faith.... So it would seem that men, having no certain knowledge or revelation, are required to take leaps of faith. One can choose to be like the elves and believe that it's all true, or live like an orc, figuring that a worm's gullet is the final destination.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

God (Eru's) inspired words and laws in Arda do not need to be put into written form because there are living (and undying) receptacles of His words and laws, namely the Valar, especially Manwe and Mandos. Why write down what is contained, perfect, in a mind with speech?

The Elves, living in Valinor as those with the written word did, had no need. And once they came back to middle-earth and spread the tengwar, they were in rebellion, and not likely to write up the Gospels of Manwe and Mandos. This tendency then gets passed on to the Numenoreans, and all others who inherit the true knowledge of the Valar.

But having direct knowlege of anything negates the need for faith - you don't need to have faith in known facts. I would argue that the Elves' direct knowlege of the Valar actually takes away their freedom of thought & perhaps even restricts their creative expression - why is there no Elvish fiction? (something I've asked before). Why don't they sub create 'secondary worlds'? Men, not having direct knowlege, can speculate on different possibilities, alternative realities, whereas Elves (the High Elves specifically) simply know the way things are. Perhaps this is what leads them to seek to 'embalm' rather than attempt to change the world around them. They know too much about the way things are & the way things were/are intended to be. They work to make the world conform to Eru's blueprint because they are actually limited by their nowlege. Men, on the other hand, not having direct access to such 'facts' are free to speculate on possibilities & examine all the options.

Of course, as Aragorn says, Men must judge as they always have - there is a sense of 'right' & 'wrong' which is innate to the Eruhini, but it is a sense in Men & is not so specific that it limits what they feel there is any point in doing. Both Men & Elves are attempting (if they are true to their own deep sense of right & wrong) to do the will of Eru, but Men are freer to think 'outside the box'& so may actually bring into being new things which, while not 'outside' the scope of the original Plan, were perhaps not specifically predicted by it.

I think this is perhaps the difference between Melkor & the Eruhini - the latter, for all their failings, are attempting to conform themselves to the will of Eru (again - when they do what they know is right), whereas Melkor was attempting to subvert & change the original plan. The Eruhini willed the Right whereas Melkor willed the 'wrong'. Both may have failed in many ways (the Eruhini causing suffering & destruction, Melkor, despite himself bringing about some good ), but they would be judged on their intent.

Again, just throwing out ideas as they occur - feel free to pull them apart...