Flaws in Lord of the Rings... Yes in the book. - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

03-05-2004, 01:01 AM

[Kronos said,]

At exactly what point does it suddenly become “valid” to intercede. Exactly how many people of Middle Earth can die fighting an un-defeatable foe before the Gods decide to intervene?

It's not a matter of quantity: the peoples of Middle-earth must show that they would stand and resist, and offer whatever they can to stop the seemingly unstoppable Shadow, no matter what the costs. Only then could the higher powers intervene.

And yes, if I had children, if they will be the cost of freedom, so be it. It is way better than sitting on my hands and doing nothing, dying all the same.

There's a saying for this, and it goes like this:

Without God, man cannot.
Without man, God will not.

Or think of it this way: The Eagles may be pretty tough, but on their own, without support, flying into the heart of Sauron's realm, they could have done nothing more than die spectacularly.

[Kronos said,]

Wanting a peaceful world is not “weakness”.
Wanting not to have to die for it is not “weakness”.

At any cost? Wow! That is scary!

Why? Think of this: Gandalf wants a peaceful world. What if he had then taken the Ring for himself? He could surely have done that. But would he stop there? No. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, as was said. The power would go to his head, and he would have done anything he wanted.

It's like having a world with many robots and one controller.

I think it would be better to die for freedom than live without it.

03-05-2004, 01:01 AM	#35
The Red Arrow Guest Posts: n/a	Re: Sacrifice [Kronos said,] At exactly what point does it suddenly become “valid” to intercede. Exactly how many people of Middle Earth can die fighting an un-defeatable foe before the Gods decide to intervene? It's not a matter of quantity: the peoples of Middle-earth must show that they would stand and resist, and offer whatever they can to stop the seemingly unstoppable Shadow, no matter what the costs. Only then could the higher powers intervene. And yes, if I had children, if they will be the cost of freedom, so be it. It is way better than sitting on my hands and doing nothing, dying all the same. There's a saying for this, and it goes like this: Without God, man cannot. Without man, God will not. Or think of it this way: The Eagles may be pretty tough, but on their own, without support, flying into the heart of Sauron's realm, they could have done nothing more than die spectacularly. [Kronos said,] Wanting a peaceful world is not “weakness”. Wanting not to have to die for it is not “weakness”. At any cost? Wow! That is scary! Why? Think of this: Gandalf wants a peaceful world. What if he had then taken the Ring for himself? He could surely have done that. But would he stop there? No. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, as was said. The power would go to his head, and he would have done anything he wanted. It's like having a world with many robots and one controller. I think it would be better to die for freedom than live without it.