Let's Talk Morgoth

[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.