Let's Talk Morgoth

[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...

[drigel]

Melkor's rebellion sets out an alternative & therefore introduces choice into the 'game'.

I was beginning to wonder when this idea was going to be presented. Orc's being redempted, elves turning to evil... interesting tangents that lie outside of the music. It is mankinds fate to balance on the knife's edge every waking day of their life that choice. Melkor embodies or represents this to me. But there is no redemption for M - only the long wait for the Last Battle..

[Maédhros]

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.

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

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 don't agree with this. How can anyone know that because Melkor rebelled that it was an alternative Eru's plan?
I see it in a different view than most. People tend to look at what Arda became as the way the Plan unfolded. I just think that that was only a process that eventually led to Arda Remade which was the true End or Arda so to speak.
If Melkor or another Ainur had rebelled or without any rebellion, I believe that in the End the Arda Remade in the Melkor intervention would have been the same as if other or no intervention, but the specific path into which it evolved would have changed entirely.
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.