The curse of Morgoth in CoH.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by skip

To speculate about the how much pre-knowledge Eru could've had about this is taking the analysis to absurd levels.

In my opinion, I have presented evidence that this is so; then again, we may have to agree to disagree .

Melkor wasn't born evil; he "fell" from his preordained high path and rebelled against Eru.

Though we was not born evil, I retain my interpretation that Eru pretty much put him on a set course, given the powers he had given him. As Later Quenta Silmarillion (to which we made several indirect references) states, the greatest are the most potent for evil. And correlated with MT, ("every finite creature must have some weakness: that is some inadequacy to deal with some situations"), I would say it is quite reasonable to expect Melkor to go this way.

You come with many argument that the choice to do good or bad was always there, regardless of Melkors marring. And this is a reasonable conclusion if we weren't talking about a fictual mythology but rather an underlying real world that the stories refers to. But it isn't a real world. It is a fictional mythology. It is my opinion that within this mythology as it is written Melkor introduced evil as a moral category.

Eru made His Children as rational beings - and free, as the valar noter in the Ainulindale.Thus, from the very start, they have the (general) ability to choose. Why would they lack the ability to choose between good and evil? Why would Eru limit their ability to choose, in regards to what is, ultimately the most important issue, that of morality, since it is, by and large, the only aspect that can connect the Eruhini back to their Creator? And, moreover, why would He allow his foremost "enemy" to crown them with this, arguably, greatest of all gifts? I particularly have problem with this last aspect, since:

- if Melkor introduced the moral category of evil, he must have also introduced that of good (them being complementary facets);
- it also means: either that he amended even the creation of the Ainur by giving them the ability to choose between good and evil (but you already disagreed with this) or that the Ainur had this ability but the Eruhini didn't - and none of this seems to me to be in accordance with Tolkien's work;
- most importantly of all, "none of the Ainur had part in their [the Eruhini's] making" (Ainulindale).

Moreover, Tolkien didn't want his Middle Earth to be alien to our world, quite the opposite, as he stated in his letters or BBC interview.

Notice that during the elder days, nothing bad even happens without Melkor behind it.

Given that he dispensed a great deal of power to promote evil, I would say that this is a rather natural outcome, that most, or all, evil events are connected to him, by receiving his "world-wide" support.

Even though elves' bodies theoretically could be destroyed which would "kill" them, this wasn't suppose to happen in Arda Unmarred or the blessed Aman.

In my opinion, if this was supposed to be so, then the elves would have had invulnerable bodies. However, not even the Valar, not even Melkor, enjoy such a trait. Therefore, it is reasonably to presume that death is a possibility, left as such by the Creator. Moreover, the Valar do not understand the complete purpose of Creation, the Eruhini the least of all. (Did sorrow lacked completely in Aman, I wonder? What about Elwe and Olwe, brothers being separated? Or kindreds separated? Or the Noldor missing Middle Earth? Or what about the Elves in Aman that, most likely, had members of their clan or family being taken away by Melkor, while they were all still in Middle Earth? Didn't this sorrows already made their way in Aman (not all of them related to Melkor, since separation of kin can appear in any circumstances)? And if the Valar didn't see this, doesn't this say how little they understood them or their purpose?)

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Raynor

...And, moreover, why would He allow his foremost "enemy" to crown them with this, arguably, greatest of all gifts? I particularly have problem with this last aspect, since:

- if Melkor introduced the moral category of evil, he must have also introduced that of good (them being complementary facets);
- it also means: either that he amended even the creation of the Ainur by giving them the ability to choose between good and evil (but you already disagreed with this) or that the Ainur had this ability but the Eruhini didn't - and none of this seems to me to be in accordance with Tolkien's work;
- most importantly of all, "none of the Ainur had part in their [the Eruhini's] making" (Ainulindale).

Well, let me retract the statement that Melkor introduced the moral category of evil. This wording I took from you I believe because I thought it had a nice ring to it. In fact, I don't think Melkor altered the Children of Eru so they could recognize what is good from what is bad, and that they weren't meant to be able to do so originally. I think Eru (according to JRRT) created all rational creatures with this ability (which you may call free will) or, in the case of Dwarves, granted it to them.

But all the rational beings under Eru were created with this free will to choose between the good and the bad, so that they would do good IMO. Melkor, the mightiest under Eru, failed this hope. We can speculate whether Eru already knew Melkor was going to rebel (which indirectly would be an argument against free will) or if he didn't. I suggest we drop this point as you can find plenty of support for both options in the texts.

Melkor didn't create evil per se, that I can go along with. But he is still the mythologiocal equivilance of evil. What he did do was to corrupt the creation with his discord, so that the creatures on earth would be swayed towards doing was is bad, something that would've been against their nature without the marring.

Originally Posted by Raynor

Moreover, Tolkien didn't want his Middle Earth to be alien to our world, quite the opposite, as he stated in his letters or BBC interview.

This is obvious already from the introductory chapters of LOtR. But Tolkien didn't write stories based on real historical events. There hasn't been any immortal elves, fire-breathing dragons, or demiurgic godlike Valar who molded the earth. When you speculate that evil would have arisen even without Morgoth it's beside the point. When we read about Roman history we can speculate about what really happened. Here, all we have is the text. What is omitted from it doesn't exist, now or in the past. In this mythology Morgoth is the represention of "evil", and like I said, everything bad that happens can be attributed to him, either directly as a person or indirectly as a source of moral corruption. The question of evil without Melkor is moot.

Oh, I browsed Morgoth's Ring and immideately found a quote to support my view (though I do not doubt you can do the same):

This is from 'the orgin of orcs' writings:

"Orcs can rebell agaist him [Sauron (my addition)] without losing their own irremediable alligiance to evil (Morgoth)."

So there you have it in JRRTs own words: Morgoth is evil.

Originally Posted by Raynor

(Did sorrow lacked completely in Aman, I wonder? What about Elwe and Olwe, brothers being separated? Or kindreds separated? Or the Noldor missing Middle Earth? Or what about the Elves in Aman that, most likely, had members of their clan or family being taken away by Melkor, while they were all still in Middle Earth? Didn't this sorrows already made their way in Aman (not all of them related to Melkor, since separation of kin can appear in any circumstances)? And if the Valar didn't see this, doesn't this say how little they understood them or their purpose?)

Sorry, but it's all Morgoth. There would've been no need for the sundering without the malice of Morgoth as he was the reason the Valar withdrew to Valinor, and also the main reason behind why some of the elves chose not to heed the Valar's calling and go to Aman. And like I said, maybe separation of kin could happen without Melkor, but that's a moot question.