Nebulous "It" and Absolutes

[Lyta_Underhill]

Except its not alright, really, is it? Not for him, & that's the point. What he suffers is wrong, when all's said & done. Its not really enough to say these big, cosmic battles have to be fought (which is true), because those who fight them (as with Tolkien's generation) suffer horribly so the rest of us can carry on.

It feels 'wrong', & I can't shake that feeling.

I, too, have this 'wrong' feeling at times, but there is also a warring feeling that I get that my view of this 'wrong' is a human conceit, a desire for things to be handed to me, for the truths and beauties of the vast universe to be handed to me on a platter. Thus, I cannot condemn inevitable suffering, nor place blame on a higher power. Ultimately, I am responsible for my own enlightenment, and to seek personal fulfillment to the exclusion of all other realities seems, to me, too egocentric a berth to proceed from. The closest label I can put on it is "spiritual envy," and that does not cover it completely, I am sure.

I cannot remember exactly when I came to the realization not only that life really wasn't fair, but that it was a dangerous conceit to wish it to be so. I found that, the more I railed against the injustices that could not be controlled, foreseen, nor avoided, the more depressed I became. I still become depressed, but I maintain these warring views and a firm conviction that, as Eru maintains in the Ainulindalë, there is no part of the Music, not even the discord of Melkor, that does not have its source in Him. The danger is to ascribe to Eru a willful malice, a desire to harm or toy with the creation. The danger is to believe that we know better than the Creator, but we would not be human if we did not question the creation, and, yes, rail against it as well. Of course there is the view of absence, that there IS no will controlling the progress of the universe, and, if I were to subscribe to this view, then I might as well stick my head in physics books and never emerge, because I'd STILL have to try to explain it somehow. I am only human after all, even if I am a hobbit!

Lyta, I can see what you're saying, & part of me agrees with it - except the idea that his wounds could be considered his own fault for 'slipping' at certain points - it seems a bit harsh, but maybe I'm taking a too negative view of your point.

I don't, in fact, blame Frodo for losing focus. Most who would try to carry such a burden would fall much more quickly and easily. It is inevitable that Frodo will have some failings, but my point was that his failings resulted in immediate and definite consequences, thus bringing home the narrowness of focus required to see this quest through. The wounds of Frodo Baggins are not his fault; they are the result of evil or chaotic forces acting upon him. The relationship with his loss of focus or will seems to me to point out the gravity of the quest and just how difficult it is to carry it through. I do not cast blame upon Frodo himself, for, under the circumstances, I think he did as well or better than any other being could have done.

Cheers!
Lyta

[Child of the 7th Age]

Davem,

I think you are asking something so basic, something so fundamental to being human, that it simply can't be contained in the character of Frodo alone, or on the pages of this thread.

The basic reality is this: there are no assurances in this life. Tolkien recognized that in his own childhood, and he wove that truth into the characters he created. Frodo is the most obvious example of someone who did the right thing, yet had to pay the consequences. Yet there are other characters in the book whose lives were tinged with untold sadness and loss: Arwen, Elrond, the Ents, and even poor Lobelia Sackville-Baggins, to name but a few. Sometimes, like Frodo or Arwen, we make a conscious decision to do what is right, knowing that stance will require us to sacrifice. More often, we are like Elrond or Lobelia, trying to muddle through things until something hits us in the stomach--something so massive that we know we'll never truly be ourselves again.

You might laugh at the inclusion of Lobelia's name in the list, but stop and think about it. She was a mother who saw her son murdered and probably cannibalised. With all her small sins and shortcomings, did she (or her son) really "deserve" such a fate. As a mother myself, I think it is clear that she did not.

I'm in my mid-fifties which is older than most people on this thread or site. As I've gone through life, one of the things that's struck me is how few people come to middle-age without being touched by a major tragedy in some way. As I talk to friends and neighbors, I compile a list of truly heartbreaking things, families touched by all the shadows and griefs of the universe, things that just shouldn't happen to good and decent folk.

Tolkien became an expert in such things at a very young age: losing both his mother and father, having to contend with the anti-Catholic prejudice that was rampant among his relatives, and enduring the horrors of trench warfare including the loss of close friends. The young man had a choice. He could have become embittered and unproductive, and turned his back on the faith his mother gave him. Like so many others of his generation, he could have embraced alienation and made cynicism his hallmark. But he didn't do that.

Instead, he kept plugging along, combatting the depression, which evidently did come in bouts, by finding meaning in friends and family, religious faith, and the myths he loved so much. When I read LotR, the impression I come away with is of sadness, loss, and sacrifice, but with one important difference. I sense that there is something good and decent that lies at the core of Middle-earth and also at the core of life so that perhaps Frodo's suffering (and ours as well) has some meaning, even if I am too limited to understand it fully. When I set down the book, I do not feel despair, horror or alienation, which is true with many other works I've read, but rather sadness deeply intertwined with joy.

Sadness intertwined with joy..... I think Tolkien has it right. Life is like that. One minute you're laughing, the next you're crying, and sometimes you're doing both at once. This is not to belittle one feeling or the other, merely to say that they're both there, and we simply don't have a lot of control over what hits us in the face. As Gandalf more eloquently said, we can't control what's presented to each of us, we can only try to make the right and decent response. And sometimes that's so hard....

I grieve with Frodo and with those around me who've hit a tough spot in this universe. I grieve for my own losses. Only a blockhead would deny that injustice doesn't exist. I've seen enough of it to know. Yet is that all there is? I just don't think so, and Tolkien's writings resonate with me precisely because he felt the same way.

Read those last words that Tolkien wrote when Frodo first saw the shores of Tol Eressea. Really read them.... the grey rain-curtain turned all to silver glass and was rolled back , and he beheld white shores and beyond them a green country under a swift sunrise. There is no way that could be Samwise speaking. It sounds nothing like him. It is Frodo and Frodo's visions from the house of Bombadil, and to me it speaks of the possibility of healing. Not the assurance but the possibility, and that's all we can expect in this life.

[Firefoot]

Perhaps it wasn't right or fair or just that Frodo had to suffer. Nothing is fair, and that is becuase the world isn't perfect. It is Arda Marred - sin, if you will. As long as there is not perfection, there will be those that have to suffer, to lose things, that others might have them. I agree that what happened to Frodo was wrong, but that is the fate of Arda Marred. If it wasn't Frodo, it would be someone else. And it wasn't just Frodo - Child gave some great examples of that. Frodo is maybe the most "obvious", the one that lost the most and suffered the greatest pain, but there were others too. Is any suffering right? How are right and wrong defined? What is more right: that Frodo should suffer; lose it all; or that all the free peoples of Middle-earth suffer and lose it all? The problem is, that in Arda Marred, right and wrong can be hard to distinguish. And it isn't always just "right" or "wrong". There are several shades of gray, where you have to wonder what is "more right" or "more wrong." Where do you draw the line? Why is Frodo's suffering wrong? Is it because he suffered more than anyone should have to? Because of the sacrifice? Because there is no guarantee that healing will come? I would say it is somewhat of a combination. Frodo suffered greatly - there is no doubt about that - much more than most people ever suffer and much more than anyone should ever have to suffer. But someone always has to suffer so that others won't because the world isn't perfect. Everyone is required to make sacrifices, but some like Frodo's are much greater than that of others. There is no guarantee that Frodo will be healed, but there is hope. This grace was granted to Frodo - that he could pass into the West and be given a chance for healing - and a hope that healing could come.

It seems that for Frodo, it all comes back to the hope or estel - trust that maybe somewhere there is healing for him. Because if there wasn't hope for Frodo, then there really was nothing left. Nothing for him to hold onto. But hope - if there was hope, then maybe there could still be something left. Hope for healing, for peace; maybe not withing the world, but even beyond it. I have to believe that Frodo had hope - because if there is no hope then there really is nothing. Not for Frodo, and not for anyone else.

[davem]

Firefoot, we seem to be saying the same thing. What happens to Frodo is wrong - everyone in the story seems to know that - Sam certainly does - his last words to Frodo show him struggling to accept the wrongness of his fate. The world is wrong, & what happens to Frodo is wrong. It is the 'way things are in the world' & has to be lived with, but it must still be acknowledged as 'wrong'.

To stray into a 'dangerous' area - Christ comes to die, to save the world. If he hadn't died on the Cross, if he'd lived a quiet life as a carpenter, got married, had kids, grown old & died peacefully in his sleep, that would have been a 'good' life for him. But no salvation, no hope beyond the world, everything would just have carried on in the same old messed up way. So, he had to die, as he did. But still, when we look at, think about him hanging there, being tortured to death, our instinctual response is that's its wrong, that it should not be happening. Intelectually & theologically we might understand why it happened & even be thankful for it, but on a gut level we what see is the 'wrongness' of the world symbolised in that one event.

Now, back to the 'plot

Moral choices are not made in a vacuum, & Frodo is put in a postion of having to take up the responsibility laid on him, or end up feeling a worse failure than he does in the end anyway. He is manouvered, by Eru, among others (Gandalf tells him he was meant to have the Ring - & not by its maker). And ultimate responsibility lies with Eru, not with Morgoth or Sauron, because Eru states that none may alter the Music in his despite.

So, does Eru have any 'moral' responsibility for his 'intentions', for what happens to individuals as a result of the changes He does or does not allow? Surely He must, if he can demand that of the inhabitants of Arda? Can Eru be held to account? Would He also require, perhaps, forgiveness from his creatures?

And please remember, none of this is to question God in this world - (though Jung seems to ask these questions about God in his 'Answer to Job'). Eru is a character in a story, God of Arda, not of this universe & we can analyse his behavour with just as much right as we analyse that of Frodo or Sauron.

[Dininziliel]

Davem,

I think if Eru/God/Love/The Universe could be held accountable for doing wrong, and thus eligible to be sued for pardon, Jesus would have come down from the cross, else he was a most insane fanatic. On a lesser scale, there could have been no LotR.

It is a matter of acceptance, pure & simple. This is not the limited level of "that's all right then."

The journey from thinking God responsible for the wrongness in life to acceptance of God's will is pretty much what LotR is all about. Tolkien repeatedly explained that its central theme was Death vs. Immortality: Men's acceptance of death, the Elves' acceptance of the "long defeat", and the consequences of attempting to usurp Eru's/God's place with the intention of altering these fates--death being the most historically perceived "wrong" thanks to the skillful wielding of fear. If we kept faith & behaved as we were created, we would not be having this discussion; instead, we chose to believe illusions which fatten on our fear and make the world most of us experience.

The ones worthy to be forgiven are the people you see, talk to, sit next to, write to, read the writings of, think of, and are one of. It is because of our own free will that the world is a cruel, harsh, and most unfair place. IMHO, this is precisely why Tolkien made the whole story pivot on pity & mercy. This was certainly Frodo's journey, and though at the end he may have been irreparably scarred, he was not bitter, nor did he say, "If only I'd known," or "I wish it had never happened," or even "I wish it had not happened to me." It was because of his pity--an inherent part of acceptance--that he could be healed. He may have failed at Doom, but he completed the larger journey. And so can we all.

[davem]

Dininziliel

I can see all your points, & from the perspective of faith, they are correct. But faith, as Tolkien stated, is trust, Hope without guarantees. It is faith that God, loving us & desiring our happiness, but also our spiritual growth - well, growth into our full humanity - will make all things well in the end.

Tolkien, in LotR, has Frodo, after the destruction of the Ring tell Sam 'Its like things are in the world, hopes fail, an end comes. And from the perspective of our life here, in the world, that is a fact. Its not the only fact - there is love, joy, here in the world. But it ends in death. as for there being anything beyond the circles of the world, we only have faith. So we can read LotR from a 'materialist'/athiest perspective, & we find it the story of an individual who is broken & dies as a result (going into the 'west' was always symbolic of dying in celtic myth). Hence is it inspires only a sense of the cruelty of fate & the deep 'wrongness' of the world. The only sense of joy that comes is joy beyond the walls of the world - he does not achieve happiness in this world. His 'spiritual growth brings sadness, resignation to the inevitability of suffering, evil & death (at least within Arda Marred) & desire to leave the world.

So, Tolkien is saying our true happiness (not only our ultimate destiny) is to be found only 'elsewhere'.

Quote. If we kept faith & behaved as we were created, we would not be having this discussion;

But this is exactly what Frodo does - to the fullest extent that he can - & he still suffers terribly, is broken, & 'dies' ( ok, dies to the world) & it is not a 'willing' death - one can will the sacrifice of ones life, but one does not will the death that comes as a consequence - does that make sense?

It seems to me that Tolkien is precisely not saying that if we lived as God willed we would be happy in this world. He is saying the opposite - this is Arda Marred, & whether we live according to Eru's will or not, we will suffer, because suffering is part of it - it is simply 'like things are in the world'.

But here we must perhaps separate ME from this world - the Bible tells us that we (as decendants of our 'primal parents') are responsible for the Fall, & must be redeemed. We have brought our sufferings on ourselves. In ME, Arda was marred before it was even given material form. Melkor spoiled it & introduced evil & contention into the blueprint - but Eru then chose, knowing the suffering that would result for all those, Elves, Men, Dwarves, Hobbits who would be born into it. God creates a perfect world which then 'falls' as a result of human free will & defiance. Eru creates a world which has corruption & evil already present in it from before its creation. So, while we cannot hold God accountable for suffering & evil in this world, we can at least question whether Eru bears any responsibility for the wrongness in ME.

[symestreem]

Premise:
Eru acts in good ways.

Assumption:
Eru is good.

Assumption:
He wants good for people.

Assumption:
Being omnipotent, he chose the best possible course for the universe.

Assumption:
Something worse would have happened if he'd done otherwise.

Assumption:
He can't be blamed for the bad stuff.

[davem]

Well, Eru, is not 'God' in this world. Eru doesn't create a 'good' world. Eru propounds a 'good' theme to the Ainur, which Melkor attempts to corrupt. Eru combats this. Melkor fights back, etc.

The Music reaches a certain point, Eru calls a halt, & then creates Arda, based on the Music - not his original 'good' concept of Arda, but from the Music which contains Melkor's theme(s).

So, from the point Arda comes into being, it is 'Marred'. So, Arda has never been 'Unmarred'. As I said Arda was never 'good'. Hence, apart from the original form it had in the mind of Eru at the first propounding of the original theme. So Eru atually creates Arda Marred, which is His choice - accepting that He did not introduce the Marring. He creates Arda Marred, knowing it is Marred, knowing that suffering must be the lot of those who will inhabit it.

So the question arises, why? Is it because He has some sense, or has come to some realisation, that in creating the Ainur, some of whom, in being seduced by Melkor, are 'flawed', or prone to being flawed/seduced by pride/evil that he is not a very 'good' creator - that the potental for creating 'flawed' or Marred beings exists within Him, & has to be worked out in a physical 'arena'?

God creates a good world, which is then Marred by 'our' fall. Eru creates an already fallen world. Eden (literally or metaphorically - depending on how fundamentalist one's interpretation of Genesis is) existed. Perfection was, it existed as a 'fact', whereas Arda Unmarred only ever existed as a possibility, an idea, in the mind of Eru, & was corrupted by Melkor before it was made.

We have thus two completely different concepts of Deity. In this world, because Eden once existed as a 'fact', it is shown to be possible. Arda Unmarrred can only be a 'hope' for the inhabitants of ME, because, beyond the original idea, it never existed physically.

So, if Eru intentionally creates a fallen world, is He not responsible for that choice? The Fall of Adam & Eve was optional - they didn't have to choose a fallen world for themselves & their decendents - so, the 'choice' of living in a fallen or unfallen world was made by those who will live in it. In Arda the choice is imposed by Eru, & the Children are born into a world already fallen, & have no choice in the matter. In this world, we struggle to make the best of our fall, which we bear responsibility for. In Arda the inhabitants live in a fallen world which fell before they came into being. Hence they never get the choice to live in an unfallen/un Marred Arda. All their choices are made in a fallen world, in response to its fallen state.

Of course, in the later writings, Tolkien seems to move away from this concept, plays it down. Men are shown to have 'chosen' to follow Melkor. But it is still not the Biblical account mythologised. Tolkien seems to be attempting to move the responsibility from Eru to Elves & Men, but the original choice of whether to create Arda according to His original theme, or according to the latest form of the Music, corrupted by Melkor lies ultimately with Eru.

If we then move to Frodo, & whether his suffering is essentially 'wrong', it all hinges on the existence or otherwise of a spiritual dimension. Put the spiritual/religious aspect on one side for a moment. What we have is the story of someone who by fate, or intent, is destroyed in his attempt to help others. He does the right thing & is broken by it, ends feeling a failure, sad, hopeless, & with his life ebbing away. The journey into the west would be symbolic of death. Deep feeling of 'wrongness', unfairness. Especially because even those he saves will also just die, & those they care about will just die, & all our hopes & dreams are lost (Atheism - we can choose that & resign ourselves to it - I remember reading an about an ancient Epicurean?? tomb inscription 'I was not. I have been. I am not. I do not mind' - or we can accept it & fall into despair about it, or just not think about it.)

Second option: Faith. Frodo does go through all that, but it is the Will of Eru. Frodo's sacrifice is not in vain. All he suffers is for some greater good, There is something beyond the circles of the World, some hope & happiness. But if we look at Frodo's final state from that perspective, do we feel its ok that he ended up as he did? Is there not some sense that it is wrong? Is there no sense that Eru is in any way responsible & to be held accountable?

If we were speaking of this world, there wouldn't be, because God made this world perfect - He saw that it was Good - so it was His intent that it should be Good, & that suufering shouldn't exist in this world - God cannot be criticised for this world's fall. But Eru, on the other hand, deliberately creates a fallen world, to 'show the Ainur what they have done'. Eru creates the world knowing Frodo will be broken, because he has created Arda knowing that Sauron will create the Ring, & that it will have to be destroyed. Christ is putting right something that shouldn't have gone wrong, because the Fall was not intended (even if known by God, He didn't choose it to happen. Eru, on the other hand, not only knows, but chooses to create Arda already Marred, & waiting for that Marring to manifest.

So, we can question Eru's motives, & responsibility, because they are different from God's.

And I think I've now inflicted enough theology on my poor readers for the present

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Be careful, davem, these are dark waters!

The argument of whether Eru = God has been debated for a long time,

I agree with you, davem, on many aspects,

I think that we can look at it this way;
Eru created the Ainor in Good intension, he listened to the first music and "It was good" Therefore his original plan for the earth was one of good, as shown in the first theme. But it was the discord of Melkor that is to blame for the eventuality of Evil in the world. Eru perhaps planed form the beginning to allow the Ainor to see their music, and gave them their free will to do with it what they would. Then there is the argument that He Knew that Melkor would arise in evil and change them music and yet still allowed it to happen. But then there is still the fact that he had the original plan of a perfect world as seen in the first theme. The fact that Frodo was left 'broken' at the end can be traced back to the discord of Melkor, without which, the world would be perfect still, there would still be the lamps, there would be no Melkor, no Sauron, no Ring, no lord of the rings, and no barrow downs discussion forums! (Dramatic music would be appropriate)

For arguments sake, lets assume Tolkien created Eru as a representation of God, How can we as mortals hope to understand the mind of a divine being? For we can say "God knows all that is and was and is to come yes? So he knew the devil would rebel and cause hurt to the world, so why would he create him?" Then if he left the world without evil there would be little hope for us as humans to have free will to chose between good and evil! Perhaps that is the same thing in the case of Eru in Tolkien’s world.

I think the point is, that Evil is essential to life. Without it we will not have free will to choose, and so Melkor, The devil and such are around to give us the choice of good or evil. As both in the Bible and in Tolkien's writing the evil is ultimately destroyed in battle, (aka, Armageddon and the Dagor Dargoth). SO we can see that Eru and God had the original intention of a perfect world, but knew that without evil, there would be no freedom for their children, but ultimately they will be rewarded for enduring evil after the final battle.

[Firefoot]

I don't think you can lay the blame on Ilúvatar.

[Ilúvatar] declared to them a mighty theme, unfolding to them things greater and more wonderful than he had yet revealed; and the glory of its splendour of its end amazed the Ainur, so that they bowed before Ilúvatar and were silent.
Then Ilúvatar said to them: "Of the theme that I have declared to you, I will now that ye make in harmony together a Great Music. And since I have kindled you with the Flame Imperishable, ye shall show forth your powers in adorning this theme, each with his own thoughts and devices, if he will. But I will sit and hearken, and be glad that through you great beauty has been wakened into song."

The one option that doesn't seem to have been pointed out is that it could have been predetermined that Arda would be created. If this were so then the Music would have been the blueprints so to speak for Arda. Ilúvatar intended that this Music, the "blueprints" would be good. When the music started, and Ilúvatar declared his theme, it was good. All of the Ainur, even Melkor, were at this point good. Therefore, Ilúvatar completely intended for the music to be good. The music, was the beginning of the Creation. At this point, while it is unfolding prior to the dischord of Melkor, is when you have Arda Unmarred.

Then we come back to Frodo. I do not believe Frodo's suffering was Eru's will. It was because of the Dischord of Melkor, sin, that he had to suffer. It was Eru's mercy, his Divine Intervention, that he allowed the Ring to be destroyed - because of Frodo's willingness to sacrifice, and because of his mercy and pity to Gollum. Because of this, Eru allowed Frodo to have peace from the Ring, and grant that there may be healing beyond the confines of the world - whether in Valinor or even after. Tolkien doesn't specify what happens to Hobbits/Men after death, but maybe for Frodo there is healing. This would be Eru's mercy to him. It is wrong that Frodo had to suffer, but I do not think that Eru was to blame for this.

Our world is marred by our fall. Would it then be fair to say that Arda was marred by Melkor's fall? Arda unmarred was an option, and it could have been but for Melkor's dischord. We fell. We sinned. But when Christ came, he did not take sin from this world. Rather, he gave us salvation after death. Salvation and healing of all of our sins and hurts in this world. Perhaps this is how it works with Eru as well. Sin in Arda, but something better, perfect, afterwards. Frodo, I believe, found healing somewhere. When/how/where is not specified.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

I must agree, Firefoot, Eru's Mercy is what saved Frodo from utter 'brokenness'. If Frodo had been driven completely mad by the ring, alike to Gollum, then the quest would not have been achieved. There again we can go into the idea of Devine intervention, as Gandalf says about Bilbo's finding of the ring;

"There were other powers at work that day, besides the will of evil"

Gandalf : The Fellowship of the ring - The shadow of the past

Then again it can be referring to the fact that Bilbo said, "What have I got in my pocket" at precisely the right time.
That suggests that Ilúvatar intervened in some way. So Then people begin to argue that this again removes the free will of Mortal races. But, as I have argued many times, the divine intervention is a guide, but men, elves and hobbit can use those guides wisely or unwisely depending on their choose.

Then again we can come around the fact that Iluvatar knew what was going to happen, he knew what they were going to chose to do, but I don’t think we can fully understand his mind.

As you said Firefoot, God sent his son to die for us to make up for the fall and the treachery of Satan so that his children may have salvation. (This is very appropriate being Easter, sorry i thought I’d point that out), So no, the blame does not belong to Eru / God, he obviously loves his children, and sent his son to die for us. and in the words of Gandalf "That is an encouraging thought".

Ps: This is my 51st post, so I’m now a haunting spirit! (Does ghost gestures and then sits down in embarrassment)

[littlemanpoet]

Child:

When a person is totally immersed in despair, they are incapable of appreciating either goodness or beauty. The fact that Frodo could look on those shores and sense their underlying purity suggests that something in him was still capable of responding to goodness.

No. I must disagree that despair removes one's ability to appreciate goodness or beauty. I speak from personal experience. This simply does not ring true. It is quite possible for Frodo to be in the midst of despair, the world seeming grey to him, and the present goodness and beauty around him not touching him, because it cannot reach past the despair; but other beauty and goodness can reach him; it simply cannot be found where he had always looked before. There is Frodo's Elvish nature, which, because the 3rd age has died, no longer can find fulfillment in Middle Earth.

Davem:

If we accept the 'conceit' behind LotR - it was written by the Hobbits involved - then who exactly wrote the account of Frodo's arrival at the Undying Lands? Sam did.

In this case, the conceit doesn't work. At this point we have omniscient narrator. Not Sam. I really don't think that the conceit does work. (hmmm.... has there ever been a thread about this?) Whereas the conceit serves it purpose as a means of adding to the historical feel of the story, by this point in the story, the conceit is no longer needed, nor affecting the reader. If the reader has stayed with it as far as Frodo's journey across the Sea, the story itself, and all that has transpired, is enough to move the reader, and does so, obviously.

Davem:

I can't see Frodo thinking 'Whoo, yeah! I'll have some of that! Where do I sign up?'

Firefoot:

Frodo could not have known what he would go through when he volunteered to take the Ring in Rivendell.

But Frodo did, at the Council of Elrond, have a notion of what was going to be required when he volunteered to take the Ring; he knew then that it was a sacrificial quest, and likely would end in his own death. He had already experienced the Morgul Blade, and been changed by it. Think of Gandalf's thoughts as he watches Frodo: "to the wizard's eye there was a faint change, just a hint as it were of transparency, about him, and especially about the left hand that lay outside upon the coverlet." And Frodo "signed on". Why would anyone do such a thing? Would you? Would I? The answer is that indeed, some of us, many of us, would. Why? Because we weigh the thing out as did one high priest a couple thousands of years ago: the sacrifice of one is worth the saving of many - even if that one is myself.

Firefoot:

I believe Frodo had hope - not for himself, but for the whole of Middle-earth.

Precisely.

Child:

One of the things that strikes me is how generally moral the Hobbits are, a morality based on instinct rather than formal belief.

It's not really based on instinct. Tolkien's Hobbits are strongly based on pre World War One English society, the culture of which was deeply rooted in Western Christianity. Those underpinnings remain among Tolkien's Shire, even if they have been unmoored from their initial context. This is proven all the more by the familiarity between the Hobbits and the Rohirrim, by which Tokien essentially evokes a time travel within his novel from 19th century England to Anglo-Saxon England of 1000 years previous. In other words, the Hobbits travel back in time as they travel south toward Rohan, Gondor, and Mordor. All of which is to say that the Hobbits' morality is basically God-fearing, even if the text does not say so, per sé.

At the beginning of the story, even, Frodo is different than the other Hobbits, which is in part why Bilbo chose him as his heir. Even here, I suppose, Frodo didn't have a choice. Bilbo made it for him, to be the heir of the Ring. As Child said, davem, when it comes right down to it, none of us has a whole lot of choice in much of anything, only sometimes between the worse, and the lesser, of two evils. Such is fallen/flawed life. And it hurts. Heh. Reminds me of an aphorism I made up for myself: "The essence of humanity is not in the exercise of free will but in the nuanced expression of suffering." Ouch! But I guess I still believe it, two years later.

Dininziliel:

Is it possible to have the opposite outcome where "all is light and full of joy"?

I believe that is is possible. Notice the quote in my sig. It's the essence of being human, I think: "You will be healed in such a way that the harm done to you, and the suffering you endure, will become the stuff of your healing." How this happens, I don't know. Does it happen in LotR? It's hard to say. Does it happen in real life? Absolutely. Thus, it seems to me, that light and joy take up into itself all the darkness and horror and suffering, and transform it into something new. How? It depends on what you believe, I suppose, and it's a little bit what this season is about for some of us.

Well, I haven't waded through the entire thread, but I'm getting long winded here, so I'll post up and be quiet for a bit.

"May your song always be sung." -Bob Dylan

LMP

[davem]

Hookbill & Firefoot,

Eru creates a flawed world - out of his own free will (& being 'God' - within ME - He is the only being who truoly has free will). It is not a world which, like this one according to the Bible, was created perfect & then fell. It is pre-fallen. So, while man's 'fall' in this world was a possibility, it was not inevitable. In ME 'falls' are effectively inevitable, because Melkor's influence is written into the blueprint.

Of course, Eru has stated that none may change the Music in His despite - so we come to te conclusion that He accepted Melkor's input. So Eru, in full knowledge, makes a world in which, because of its nature, falls are more or less inevitable, or at least incredibly difficult to avoid.

The fact that God knew of the fall of man is not the point. He knew it would happen, but that isn't the same as causing it to happen. god created a good world, in which there was no evil in either the planning or in the making. Eru creates in full knowledge, a world was, or had become, flawed in the planning stage. He knows all things predicted in the Music will come about, because He has created the world in such a way that they must come about - because 'none' may change the Music in His despite.

So, He is responsible. In choosing Frodo to carry the Ring, He is responsible for what happens to him. In this world Christ comes to save us from our sins through his death. But in ME Eru's incarnation (as predicted in the Athrabeth) & subsequent death, would be about putting right the Flaws he had deliberately allowed in His own creation. The first is God putting right our 'wrong', the second is Eru putting right his own.

LMP - long time no hear!

As to the 'conceit' of LotR, for me it still applies, & makes the ending more beautiful & moving - no, we don't have final confirmation that Frodo comes safe to the Undying Lands & the healing he needs - but we have Sam's hope for him. And this is a story about Hope, without guarantees. It leaves us feeling that it should be true - & this is what inspires hope, faith, & trust. What inspires in the Christian story is a deep sense that it should be true, it ought to be like that - & that, not all the textual or archaeological 'evidence' is what first connects with people. Not the 'wrongness' - which that kind of death also inspires - we always feel that cruelty & death is 'wrong', & that 'someone' must be held accountable. But there is a sense that because of that event something is now put right that wasn't right before. In this sense, the 'conceit' of LotR works, even at the end. Our emotional connection is stronger because we don't really know what happened - we have Sam's hope that it will all work out for the best. A simple faith, not a stated 'fact', dead as a doornail.

As to Frodo's willing acceptance of the burden - yes, he did - at least he accepted it in stages. What he could not accept or agree to is what he would become, how he would end up. So, can we say he 'brought his final condition on himself, because he agreed to take the Ring? If we can't say that, then can we hold anyone or anything else responsible - Eru, who made Arda Flawed, & will allow none to change the Music in his despite - or 'the way things are in the world' (which again brings us back to Eru, because 'the way things are in the world is down to Him).

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Davem, I bring you back to what I said earlier.

In my opinion, Tolkien is trying to make the point that for us to have free will, there must be flaws in the world. Whether they come through Men's fall or through deliberate Creation of Flaws. Without Evil, we cannot make the choice to do what we will.

But still, ultimately the flaws are made up for and all get what they deserve, whether that be to live in bliss with God / Eru, or to suffer eternally. The choice is left to the peoples of M-E, that is why Eru created the flaws, but yet still makes up for them in the end.

That, I think, is the essence of Christianity, if the world was without flaw, we would all Love God from the moment we were born and it would not be anything special. God Loves us from before we were born, that is something special. But if we are given the choice to Love God or not to, then if ones choose to Love God then that connection becomes more intimate and special to the person.

So, I believe that Eru was making the flaws to give the people a choice, To have a special relationship with him, or not to, thus they were the most free of all races on M-E.

It is for that reason that I do not consider Christianity to be a religion, because the word religion suggests simply following a set of rules for life, where as in Christianity it is more based on having a loving and personal relationship with God. So we can guess that as Tolkien was a Christian, he will have wanted to get this message across to people.

[Firefoot]

Davem,

To say that Eru was responsible for the creation of an imperfect world and on a smaller scope, Frodo's suffering, would be to say that Eru 'sinned' and therefore was not perfect and incapable of creating a perfect world. Arda would have been perfect, had it not been for the discord of Melkor, and so Eru would be capable of creating a perfect world. There are two ways to go from this: either Eru fell as well, and sinned, becoming imperfect, or rather than causing the world to be imperfect, he allowed it to be imperfect because of the Music. In the Music, Eru allowed them free will. To draw a parallel: God does not cause suffering. He allows people to suffer, but he also uses the suffering for good.

"And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme can be played that does not have its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite."

I interpret this a little bit differently. I take this to mean that though others (Melkor) can try to change the Music to evil and use it for evil, Eru is good and since all the Music comes from Eru it will be used for good. No one can change the Music to utter evil, though bad things would come of it (i.e. sin, suffering) and the world would no longer be perfect. So rather than causing Arda to be marred, he allowed it to be marred. Eru was working for the good of the universe, and though he would allow the evil he would make good things come of it. In the same way, I would say that he allowed Frodo to suffer, because there would be something better for Frodo at the end. Does this make it right that Frodo suffers? No, it can't be right because suffering is a result of sin, the Discord. However, Eru allowed it that some higher purpose could be accomplished through him. The Discord was not caused by him, nor was the suffering. He allowed it, because in the Music, he gave the Ainur free will.

ye shall show forth your powers in adorning this theme, each with his own thoughts and devices, if he will.

You said that only Eru truly had free will; to me it seems that in the making of the Music, the Ainur also had free will, because if Eru interfered and didn't allow the discord, they would not have free will. The Music could not be altered, but in the making of the Music there was nothing set in how it would go other than Eru's intentions, which was that it would be good, to create a perfect world.

Hookbill (Do you prefer Hookbill or Goomba?),

I disagree that there had to be flaws for there to be free will. You would still be choosing to be perfect; that was what the fall of man was. They chose not to be perfect. They were perfect, but they had the choice not to be, and they took that choice. Just because the world is perfect, does not mean that there is still not the choice of evil. The world is then no longer perfect, and the choice for evil becomes more common.

This final point in my post is going a bit off topic, I hope everyone forgives me for this. That is what you said about Christianity not being a religion. Just because it is not like other world religions doesn't mean it isn't one. A religion is defined as

1 the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. 2 a particular system of faith and worship. 3 a pursuit or interest followed with devotion.

Christianity meets all of these definitions. One of the beliefs of a Christian is that we are not perfect; which is why as you point out it is not just following a set of rules, because as sinners it is impossible to follow the rules, which is why redemption is necessary.

[davem]

But in creating Arda already flawed by incorporating Melkor's themes Eru increases the likelihood that the Children will choose evil - its more likely you will fall on uneven, unstable ground than on level, solid ground. So, by incorporating Melkor's themes He takes away complete freedom from the Children. Evil is already inherent in Arda from its making. This is why within Arda no-one has true free will, because circumstances, including innate evil in the matter of Arda, will affect their choices.

When you say Eru would allow evil to come into the making & to exist, you state that He has a choice in that. Is He then responsible for His choices? He is not forced to allow evil into the Music, or into the making. And the idea that He allows it in order to bring about ultimate good is simply to say that the End justifies the means - anything is acceptable if the end result is 'good'. But is that the case? Isn't it actually the case that the end is a result, a direct consequence, of the means employed?

The question still remains - If Eru, motivated by a desire to bring about the Good, (& even if He knew that it was the only way to achieve the Good), allows Evil into existence, is He not responsible for the suffering that results along the way to the good? Does Eru's desired end absolve Him of all the suffering His children go through in bringing it about? Eru Himself does not suffer. In Christianity God does suffer through His incarnation & death, but that is for a different reason. Christ suffers to save us from a fate we have brought on ourselves. If Eru incarnates & suffers it would be only 'just' - why should He be the only one who doesn't suffer as a consequence of His choices?

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Hookbill will do nicely Firefoot.

I would like to again put forward the argument that with the deliberate inclusion of Evil in the world it makes The chosen relationship with God/Iluvatar that more intimate and special. Without Evil we would not think that Knowing God was anything special.

But in creating Arda already flawed by incorporating Melkor's themes Eru increases the likelihood that the Children will choose evil - its more likely you will fall on uneven, unstable ground than on level, solid ground. So, by incorporating Melkor's themes He takes away complete freedom from the Children. Evil is already inherent in Arda from its making. This is why within Arda no-one has true free will, because circumstances, including innate evil in the matter of Arda, will affect their choices.

Iluvatar would not let Evil ultimately take over the world, he can't, if evil began to gain ruler ship he would intervene, but there will always be good in the world, and there will always be Evil. Without the evil present we cannot chose to be evil or not to be. as you said, davem, because of circumstances, Free will is taken away, this is where i do not agree, within the circumstances people have the choice to do what they will in those circumstances. But i see how you can think that some ones upbringing can affect their choices in later life, however the choices still remain to follow what you have been taught or to go on another path. Which is why there is hope for all people on the earth, as all people have the choice to stop following the path of evil and go onto the road to salvation.

[davem]

Only time for a short response:

Well, there's a difference between allowing the possibility of evil, & allowing the presence of evil. Eru, as you say, must allow for the former, but the latter is not necessary.

Eru creates Arda with the 'presence' of evil inherent within it, not just the 'possibility' of it.

[Lyta_Underhill]

The fact that God knew of the fall of man is not the point. He knew it would happen, but that isn't the same as causing it to happen. god created a good world, in which there was no evil in either the planning or in the making.

Eru creates in full knowledge, a world was, or had become, flawed in the planning stage. He knows all things predicted in the Music will come about, because He has created the world in such a way that they must come about - because 'none' may change the Music in His despite.

This contrast is interesting, and I bow down before your ability to clarify this basic underpinning of the two worlds, davem! This should go in an FAQ somewhere! However, I do get odd notions from the contrast as well. (Being not versed in theology or in the finer labels of philosophical theory, I must relegate my insights to "notions.")

First, having God know of but not influence the fall of man seems to separate Him from us in a fundamental way, distancing the Creator from the created, putting us alone into a universe that you might argue has been marred by our own actions. Thus, it suggests that theory that God set the universe in motion and allowed it to take its course by means of physical laws and "free will," that any intervention would be from outside, by a force greater than us and also alien to us. In a way, it can lead to as much despair as a view where the Creator builds His music into us and our sufferings are pre-ordained. If you ascribe to God a separateness from Man and thus a lack of connection between Him and us, it might suggest that he does not control the outcome of His creation but can only reach a hand in every now and then to correct his "experiment."

The Eru hypothesis would suggest that He knows it all, and that the sufferings of men and our hero Frodo are part of the larger Music. In a way, this view gives me more hope than the bleak idea that we bring our suffering upon ourselves, by our own choices of evil. If you accept as axiomatic that men are flawed and susceptible to evil, then a man "falling" to evil in our universe is like a man devouring himself, becoming, in effect, evil himself. Frodo's fall, however, is inevitable, and, however much it makes him suffer, it is a direct connection to the universe and to the Music. It puts Frodo in the position of fighting the Long Defeat directly and in a key way, rather than stumbling through and suffering for nothing. I don't think this takes ALL of Frodo's free will from him, though, as he is free to abandon the quest at any point but chooses not to do so. This bespeaks an inner strength, and in my opinion, is not inevitable, but directly willed. In a sense, Frodo IS the Music, rather than being a puppet of Eru.

I am not sure I have explained this properly and I am running out of time, so hopefully it is clear enough.

Second point: The fundamental difference davem points out givs me the same feeling I got when looking at the plain wood back walls of the Pirates of the Caribbean ride at Disneyworld one year, when I performed with a marching band at the opening of Epcot Center (yes, I'm that old!). The walls and concrete sidewalk were so bleak and unlike my childhood experiences on the ride itself that, even though I know it to be a construct, the seeing of it destroys the illusion on another level, and now Pirates of the Caribbean is an even cheesier memory! (Not that I'd give up the odd experience of seeing the back end of a pirate realm!)

In a way, this rings with the idea of sub creation, the limitations of Man in the arena of the divine. No matter how he struggles to paint a complete picture, there is always something that he must consider on man's level and not God's/Eru's . Eru is a reflection, a sub-creation, but the mysteries and questions raised by both are fundamentally unresolvable from our point of view (at least in my point of view.). I personally find it more rewarding to allow mysteries to exist, rather than to rail against them, since the latter is ultimately futile and creates more unhappiness than fulfillment. Thus, I cherish not only my 6 year old wonder at the dark splashes of bizarre pirates that sing and don't move and exist only for my pleasure, but also the stark walls and concrete behind them, the construct that somehow holds in a world I can enjoy without having to regret that the walls are there.

Now that time has run out, and I must attend to the day, I hope my thoughts have interested some of you, or at least been a bit amusing!

Cheers!
Lyta

[The Saucepan Man]

Well, there's a difference between allowing the possibility of evil, & allowing the presence of evil. Eru, as you say, must allow for the former, but the latter is not necessary.

Eru creates Arda with the 'presence' of evil inherent within it, not just the 'possibility' of it.

But once Eru imbued his children with free will, he had to accept the consequences, even though they might exercise that free will in such a way as to give rise to evil. Otherwise, he would be denying them the very free will which he gave them.

Eru created the Ainur with free will. As you say, davem, this allowed for the possibility of evil. He then allowed the Ainur to be involved in the conception of Arda through their participation in the Music. Melkor chose to exercise his free will in a way that gave rise to the certainty that evil would exist once the "blueprint" of Arda created by the Music was brought into being. But, if Eru were to have prevented that happening (for example by scrapping that "blueprint" and starting afresh), he would have been denying Melkor his free will. He was thus obliged to allow the possibility of evil to become a reality when Arda was created.

Eru also allowed his other children (Elves and Men) and his adopted children (Dwarves) to have free will. Because evil existed within Arda, they had the option to exercise their free will for evil purposes. (They may have been able to do so even had evil not exisited within Arda at its creation, courtesy of Melkor, but that is another issue.)

Why did Eru allow his children free will? Well, it is impossible for us to say, but it seems to me that the whole thing would have been rather a pointless exercise had he not done so. Without free will, the denizens of Arda would have been akin to automatons, simply living their lives according to fixed path which Eru had ordained. And, as Hookbill has said, they would have had no appreciation of their own innate goodness (and that of Eru), since there would have been no alternative with which to compare it.

So, where does this leave Frodo? Well, since evil existed in Arda, it was inevitable that certain individuals would be required to address the consequences of its presence. Frodo is not the only individual who suffered as a consequence of the existence of evil within Arda. There were, of course, countless others. Some must take at least some responsibility for their own suffering (as a result of the manner in which they exercised their free will), while others are entirely (or largely) innocent, but suffer primarily as a result of the way in which others exercise their free will. Frodo falls into the latter category. Once Sauron created the Ring (exercising his own free will) it was inevitable that someone would have to undergo the hardships that Frodo underwent and suffer the losses that he suffered in order to prevent (or at least try to prevent) Sauron prevailing. Frodo just happened to be that someone.

Or did he? What I find interesting is the way in which it appears that Eru intervenes to help bring about the destruction of the Ring. Eru cannot just intervene willy-nilly, since, by doing so, he denies the free will of those involved in the struggle. But, the way I see it, he does appear to intervene directly on at least two occasions. The first is when Bilbo first finds the Ring, if we are to take Gandalf's statement that it was intended that he find it (and not by its maker) at face value. The second is at Sammath Naur, when Gollum "fortuitously" slips and falls into the Crack of Doom with the Ring.

Now, I can understand Eru's intervention on the second occasion, since Frodo had done all that could have been expected of him. He could not voluntarily destroy the Ring because his free will was effectively negated by the Ring. In such circumstances, it seems justifiable to me for Eru to intervene to prevent Sauron's victory (which would have been inevitable, had Gollum not slipped). Frodo effectively had no free will at that point, so there was no free will for Eru to deny him by intervening.

But what about the first occasion? Admittedly, had Bilbo (or someone) not found the Ring, it would probably have been found by an Orc, in which case it would have swiftly found its way back to its Master. But why choose Bilbo to find it, thus practically ensuring that Bilbo or, more likely, his heir (Frodo) would be the one required to undergo the suffering involved in seeking to destroy it? In this sense, it seems to me to have been ordained by Eru that Frodo would be the one chosen to undertake this task. And this seems to me to be a violation of Frodo's free will. Although he undertook the Quest willingly he really had no clear idea as to precisely how it would affect him (as davem has said) and, in any event, he probably had no real choice in the matter since, once he became the Ringbearer, it seems unlikely that he would have been capable voluntarily of giving the Ring up. Had he not agreed to undertake the Quest, Sauron would probably have been the victor one way or another.

So the real question for me is why did Eru intervene in the way that he did at that moment when Bilbo was lost in the tunnels under the Misty Mountains? Surely he could have intervened in another way which would have prevented the Ring falling into Orcish hands. Of course, then someone else (one of the Dwarves perhaps, or his heir) would have had to have undertaken the Quest which Frodo eventually undertook (thus effectively denying that person (Dwarf?) their free will). But why did Eru choose Bilbo to find it and, therefore, Frodo to be the one to undertake the Quest of Mount Doom?

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Saucepan Man, the ring in the hands of a Dwarf may not have necessarily been a good thing. Reason not withstanding, Hobbits had an incredible resistance to the rings power, A Dwarf may have not had the will or strength to even take up the challenge, only one with the simplicity and innocence of a Hobbit could do the deed, but I think Frodo will have known that If he was to accomplish the deed he would have to sacrifice much.

The Message I think Tolkien wants us to read from this is, The Hobbits were not over occupied with war or the memory of war; battle and power was not impotent to them.

"Elves and Dragons! Cabbages and potatoes are better for you."

Gaffer Gamgee

This pretty much sums up the attitude of the Hobbits. Their innocence was what made them resilient to the ring, Eru knew this, and so you can trace the pattern all the way back to when Olorin was created, Perhaps Gandalf's purpose was to send Bilbo on this mission to the Lonely mountain and so find the ring on the way, thus entangling himself in all deeds concerning the ring.

In U-T it tells us of how Gandalf remembered Bilbo as a child;

"Somehow I had been attracted by Bilbo Long before, as a child, and a young Hobit: he had not quite come of age when I had last seen him. He had stayed in my mind ever since, with his eagerness and his bright eyes, and his love of tales, and his questions about the wide world outside the Shire. As soon as I entered the shire I had news of him. He was getting talked about, it seemed. Both his parents had died early for Shire-folk, at about 80; and he had never married. He was already grown a bit queer, they said, and went off for days by himself. He could even be seen talking to strangers, even Dwarves!
Gandalf, Unfinished Tales, the Quest of Erebor

It is my belief that Eru Purposed it that Gendalf should remember Bilbo and so send him on this task, because hobbits had such resilience to the ring, he knew the ring would be dropped by Gollum, so he guided Bilbo's hand to find it. Old Olorin then left Bilbo with the choice to give up the ring of his own free will or to keep it, or be it with a little encouragement.

[The Saucepan Man]

Doh! I realised soon after I posted my contribution above that, by intervening to ensure the destruction of the Ring, Eru is denying Sauron his free will in the same way that he would have denied Melkor his free will had he not allowed the "tainted blueprint" of Arda to come into being.

Hmm. Perhaps Eru's intervention is only justified when its effect is to avert circumstances which would otherwise inevitably result in a total victory for the forces of evil. Which would justify his intervention in the tunnels under the Misty Mountains, since otherwise the Ring would almost certainly have found its way back to Sauron. But that does not explain why Eru chose Bilbo to find it and seemingly ordained Frodo to destroy it.

Reason not withstanding, Hobbits had an incredible resistance to the rings power, A Dwarf may have not had the will or strength to even take up the challenge, only one with the simplicity and innocence of a Hobbit could do the deed

I most certainly agree with that, Hookbill. I have always considered Hobbits to have a peculiar resistance to the effects of the Ring and therefore the most suitable candidates for Ringbearer (although not proto-Hobbits, as Smeagol's miserable life shows us). But this brings us back to the question posed by davem some while back: how can Eru be justified in choosing Frodo for the task in circumstances in which he (Frodo) cannot possibly concieve the scale of the loss which he will suffer in carrying it out, and in which, once the Ring comes into his possession, he really has very little choice in the matter (if Sauron's victory is to be averted).

Perhaps it just comes down to the fact that, unless Eru had taken it upon himself to destroy the Ring by direct intervention (a serious negation of free will), someone had to do it. And, of all the available candidates, perhaps Frodo was best suited to the task.

[Bêthberry]

Without addessing some of the major points in the discussion here, I would like to offer a slight observation about what can be said of dwarves, as I believe a special case is made of their relationship to the rings. My references are to Appendix A, "Durin's Folk".

There are several passages which suggest that dwarves were more impervious to the Ring's ability to inflame desire for power than other peoples. Among Durin's Folk, it was believed that the dwarven Ring was the first of the Seven to be forged and was given to Durin III, King of Khazad-dûm, by no less than the elven smiths themselves rather than by Sauron (who of course still had his hand in forging it). (II am rather shamelessly paraphrasing and condensing Tolkien here.) The Ring was held in secret by the dwarven kings.

The particular power of the Ring over the dwarves is explained thusly:

None the less it may well be, as the Dwarves now believe, that Sauron by his arts had discovered who had this Ring, the last to remain free, and that the singular misfortunes of the heirs of Durin were largely due to his malice. For the Dwarves had proved unmanageable by this means. The only power over them that the Rings wielded was to inflame their hearts with a greed of gold and precious things, so that if they lacked them all other good things seemed profitless, and athey were filled with wrath and desire for vengeance on all who deprived them. But they were made from their beginning of a kind to resist most steadfastly any domination. Though they could be slain or borken, they could not be reduced to shadows enslaved to another will; and for the same reason their lives ere not affected by an Ring, to live either longer or shorter becasuse of it. All the more did Sauron hate the possessors and desire to dispossess them. [my bolding]

I suppose this can actually suggest a reason why a dwarf could not carry the One Ring, that dwarves had already drawn the wrath and malice of Sauron and might be greater targets than Frodo.

Still, I think it is clear from the Appendix that the dwarves might indeed have the strength not only to take up the challenge but to persevere. That in itself might provide less dramatic potential than the slow process of Frodo's struggle with the Ring. Yet let us give the dwarves their just due.

As an interesting extrapolation of this,we might consider if in fact the body of LOTR, the text proper as opposed to the addenda, supports this view of dwarves as impervious to domination. And, indeed, if The Hobbit and The Silm do as well. Is this quality as apparent in the texts as it is in the historical documentation? If not, that might account for the very different interpretations of dwarves offerred in this thread.

[davem]

And yet the question remains, if creatures can be held accountable for their freely willed choices & actions, can their creator? Does Eru bear any responsibility for His choices - from His creation of a 'flawed' Arda, down to His choice of Frodo to bear the Ring?

He seems to allow freedom of action to His Children up to a point - the point that His plan seems to be put at risk - then He simply takes it away :Frodo claims the Ring, the Nazgul will then, as Tolkien shows in Letters, sieze it & surrender it to Sauron, so, at that point, Eru steps in & puts everything right (or rather, puts His plan back on course). So, we are free to do what we want - except change the Music. But then, how much freedom do we actually have? Eru will step in to manipulate events & even individuals. It almost seems that to Eru, the 'plan', the Music is more important than the freedom of His children.

But maybe this is to avoid complete anarchy? But then why give His Children freedom at all if He has already decided what will be permitted & what will not? Will the Children ever be allowed to grow beyond childhood, or will their Father always be running things - a 'benevolent dictator', in Plato's words?

Lyta, I think Tolkien did think of God as being seperate from His creation, & intervening (directly) only at specific times, but retaining overall control of the direction of the Universe. But we come then to what Tolkien understood God's nature to be. If we take one of his fellow TCBSite GB Smith's elegies for Rob Gilson we find: 'Tolkien & the Great War'

' One piece declares a stark view of Divine providence: Gilson's death is "a sacrifice of blood outpoured" to a God whose purposesare utterly inscrutable & who "only canst be glorified/ By man's own passion & the Supreme pain"'

Does Tolkien share this view of God? And are we seeing this 'gloryfication' of Eru in Frodo's 'passion & Supreme pain'? But isn't this too close to saying Eru is some kind of ego maniac, some kind of mad dictator, glorying in the suffering of His slaves? Or some kind of Ozymandias, declaring 'look on my works, ye mighty & despair'? And if that is the case, who could blame the athiests for laughing at his broken statue?

Do we find Eru to 'loving' & self sacrificing? Do we even find the Valar to be so. Certainly not in what we would consider to be a Chistian sense. But perhaps we are dealing here with a vision of the Divine which has come out of loss - of parents, friends & the 'blue remembered hills' of a lost, irretrievable childhood. Why has God allowed so much loss - was Smith right? Does our suffering 'glorify' God? Or does God not really care for us - which is the worse option? And, as long as Eru puts everything right in the end, isn't that enough (well, perhaps - as long as we don't question too deeply, & hold to our faith & trust - estel).

Of course, we could step back & see the story of Frodo as the story of 'Everyman'. We all have to take up our Ring (or our Cross) & walk our own via Dolorosa, be broken before we can be re-made. And maybe it is for our own good, & has to be that way, & we have to be free to fall. But we come back to the point - does Eru bear any responsibility for the suffering of His Children? By creating sentient Children, capable of suffering, & putting them into a world where they will suffer, does Eru in any sense have to at least account for Himself to His children?

Perhaps that is the reason for Eru's incarnation which the Athrabeth speaks about. Not as in Christianity, to save mankind from the consequence of its sin, but simply to suffer alongside His Children. Perhaps that in itself is Eru's calling Himself to account. Perhaps in that act He is suffering alongside Frodo, not saving him.

[littlemanpoet]

I read something recently that responds quite succinctly to some of what is being debated here, about the "why" of suffering in terms of God or Eru. It explores five different answers to the question, and shows that each answer is lacking.

Suffering is a punishment. The argument: I must have done something awful for this to be happening to me. God can't be to blame, so I must be. But children never deserve to be abused by their parents, and loved ones never deserve to be killed by drunk drivers. So this answer can't be right.

Suffering sensitizes us. The argument: The purpose of suffering is to leave us more compassionate and tender. The problem is that the price is too high. Do some people have to starve in order to make me thankful for food? If God would do awful things to other people just to teach me lessons, he's not worth worshiping.

Suffering is a result of our free will. The argument: This is the "fallen world" argument. Our own choices have caused the world's pain; the mess is our mess. But no one chooses to have cancer. Victims of murder, rape, etc., never chose the crime committed against them. Suffering is a personal problem, not an "issue"; if an explanation doesn't hold up in the emergency room, it doesn't really help.

Suffering is a Test. The argument: Through suffering we discover what we are made of. Problem is that not all suffering has the benefit of testing our character. What's the test when an earthquake kills thousands in a Third World earthquake? A god who is obsessed with testing his creatures is not one of love and grace.

Suffering is simply a part of human life. The idea here is that our moments of pain are part of the natural rhythm of life; suffering just is going to happen, it's part of the human condition. The problem with this notion is in the specific cases: how can a baby born with an addiction to crack ever be seen as a natural part of life's rhythms? If you hang with this idea, you end up with a random succession of events that are either painful or joyful but have no purpose. Grave doubts would ensue about the benefit of having a god or a life.

Then the book offers an alternative, which is that the "why" of suffering is unanswerable as such, and is actually a prayer instead of a question seeking a propositional answer. Suffering's only answer is a numinous experience. For those of us from the Judeo-Christian tradition, we see this represented in Job, who lost everything, asked all kinds of "why" questions, and finally saw God; once he did, he no longer needed the question answered; having seen God was his answer.

Here's what I've been leading up to: I wonder if Frodo's vision was not Tolkien's presentation of the numinous experience that was the answer to Frodo for all his suffering? "...at last on a night of rain Frodo smelled a sweet fragrance on the air and heard the sound of singing that came over the water. And then it seemed to him that as in his dream in the house of Bombadil, the grey rain-curtain turned all to silver glass and was rolled back, and he beheld white shores and beyond them a far green country under a swift sunrise." Scent and sight and sound. It's all there: a new dawn, something being "rolled back as a scroll", as it were, and a far green country that puts me in mind of both Niggle's Parish, and the distant mountains in "The Great Divorce" by C.S. Lewis. This numinous experience that Tolkien describes is meant for the reader just as much as it's meant for Frodo. No other answer satisfies for Frodo's suffering.

"May your song always be sung."

LMP

[davem]

Or, we 'transcend' sufering, passing into a more spiritually aware state. Like Jung's example of being caught in a storm in the mountains. You cannot stop it, so you climb above it. The storm is still going on, but you can watch it from a safe distance. Perspective. We are spiritual beings, when we awaken to our true state we will be able to look on our experiences & those of others & see them as part of the growing process.

Frodo's suffering remains 'wrong', but rather than this wrong being put right, it is transcended. So, are we talking about Frodo being 'healed' in the usual sense of the word? Is he actually 'healed' in the sense of having what was wrong with him put right, or do his wounds remain forever, but he himself is made different by having had them inflicted on him, suffering them?

I remember a few years back, I found a big chunk of green glass buried in a field. The plough had scraped & cracked it, broken it's edges into jagged angles. But when its held up to the light those flaws refract & reflect the light shining through it. The inside is like liquid. If it hadn't been battered & damaged in the way it has been, by both man & nature, it wouldn't have been as beautiful - yet its not the glass alone which is beautiful, its the light shining through it. If the 'flaws', the 'wounds' in it were 'healed' it would not be as beautiful when the light shone through it.

So Frodo is not healed in the sense of being made into his old self again. The wounds are not made to 'disappear'. They remain always, but are made into something else. Which would mean that our flaws, possibly even our 'sins' (forgiven, but 'transformed' rather than forgotten) remain with us, but because we have become different, our 'flaws' too, have become different.

But then we come back to hope without guarantees. Only God, the numinous, can give meaning to life, can offer that transformation. Without 'God' there is only wrongness, & life is ultimately without meaning. Which is a stark choice - Hopelessness, or Hope without guarantees.

I don't know where this is going - not this thread, but my train of thought at the moment. I still don't think the 'wrongness' is accounted for. Rising above it - or being raised above it - doesn't make it disappear. The wrongness is still there, even if you are no longer affected by it. And if that wrongness continues, that's unjust, & we are back at the question of why Eru, or God, allows that injustice. Is bringing right out of wrong, good out of evil, sufficient justification for allowing the 'evil' to go on existing?

I don't know, but you have got me thinking

[littlemanpoet]

davem: Maybe that's putting too bald a face on it, but I found your comment interesting:

I still don't think the 'wrongness' is accounted for.

Precisely. You are saying what the book said: accounting cannot arrive at an answer, because you're still trying to add things up, and they will not. Your example of Jung and transcendence is an example of numinous experience.

And if that wrongness continues, that's unjust, & we are back at the question of why Eru, or God, allows that injustice. Is bringing right out of wrong, good out of evil, sufficient justification for allowing the 'evil' to go on existing?

This is just another version of asking "why". I think "why" is unanswerable. One has to let go of "why" and move through the suffering to the numinous, that completes the suffering with joy.

It is also telling that, from the Christian tradition again, Christ still bears the scars of his suffering, even in his "perfect", resurrected body, and will forever, according to the texts. So perfection no longer equals "without blemish", but seems to equal "completed and restored to wholeness, even with the signs of suffering still there". Apparently, if one accepts the Christian point of view on this, every scar we bear after our how-ever-many-years of life, may still be visible, whether emotional, psychological, spiritual, physical, or whatever, but will be made part of the perfection of the resurrected body. Sorry if this was offensive to those of you who do not hold to this particular faith; it's the way I think and view the world, and you know, I'm rather glad of it right now.

Completeness seems like the only possible conclusion to suffering, and it seems to be what Tolkien is suggesting not only for Frodo, but for Sam and the rest of the Fellowship as well.

[davem]

I suppose part of the problem is that LotR ends before we see Frodo's final state. We see the broken Frodo setting out for the West, but not what becomes of him. As if the story of Job ended with him sitting in the dust & his friends telling him he must have done something to have brought it on himself.

So, Gandalf can say that he will be like a vessel filled with light for those to see who can, yet Frodo seems unable to see that light in himself. Perhaps it is the light (God) that shines though us that makes our faults, our 'wounds' beautiful. And yet our wounds come so often from our 'sins' - as has been pointed out earlier in this thread, Frodo's wounds are recieved when he gives in or loses hope. So, wrongness & 'evil' are what shape us into what we finally become. No wounds or flaws are ugly when the light shines through them. So, 'forgiveness of our sins' is when the light of God shines through us, making our wounds beautiful. If our sins are not forgiven, the wounds remain ugly because they are not illuminated. The Light shining in the darkness.

So, we can only be beautiful in the eyes of others, never in our own eyes, because we cannot see the light which shines through us, only the light which shines through others. So, we can never see God in ourselves, only in those around us. This reminds me of William's 'Beatrician experience' - seeing God in the beloved. God reveals Himself to us by His light shining through those around us. And He reveals himself to others by His light shining through us.

So all the saints experience themselves as sinners & unworthy, & less than those around them - as Frodo does at the end of LotR. Which, I suppose, means that his 'healing' in the West is perhaps simply (!) about him learning to see himself as others see him.

Or something.

[littlemanpoet]

davem Poignant! Well stated. Moving, too!

I do think it would be more apt to say that the last state we see Frodo in - wounded and going over sea - is more akin to Job repenting in dust and ashes after he has seen God. As you said, we don't see the part of Frodo's story that is akin to Job being blessed with a whole new flock of herds and children and houses, etc. You know, I don't think LotR would have worked if Tolkien had written it that way. I like it better the way it is.

[Bêthberry]

davem, if I may interject something here, I think your point about Frodo is particularly important in terms of the story.

I suppose part of the problem is that LotR ends before we see Frodo's final state. We see the broken Frodo setting out for the West, but not what becomes of him.

It accords first of all with Tolkien's observation in "On Fairy-Stories":

for there is no true end to any fairy-tale

The footnote to this comment (footnote H) elaborates upon it essentially to suggest a reason for this: it takes us out of the limited frame of our own time into timelessness.

Perhaps another example of this 'open-ended narrative' also accords with your thoughts here. Acts of the Apostles, the book of the New Testament which tells of Paul's ministry, ends not with Paul's execution in Rome but with his ministry there. Much is left to the imagination and thought of the reader, as you so ably provide here.

For myself, I would not have wanted a 'complete' resolution to Frodo's fate any more than that of the others who sail West with him, for that would take the story out of the perilous realm, in my humble estimation. If I read your posts correctly, I think this is something you imply as well.

[davem]

LMP, Bethberry,

So, we have Frodo 'repenting'. I wondered at first. Then the question got too big. Has Frodo anything to repent of? If he claimed the Ring in full knowledge of the implications, then, yes. He is, like Job, broken - but broken by his own 'sins', or by God, or by the way things are in the world?

Julian of Norwich wrote 'Our life here is penance'. For what? If our whole life is penance, then not for something we as individuals have done or not done. So penance for what? Being imperfect? Yet that's how we were made. Yet, if our life was not a penance, we could not be remade through suffering into something wholly different - as Tolkien says of Frodo. So, we repent of what we are - no matter who is responsible, or how it came to be that we did not appear already perfected. The 'wrongness' we feel - about the way world is, is because we are 'wrong'. We see as in a Glass, darkly. So everything seems dark. Till the Light shines - or until we can see it, till our eyes are opened. And Lewis said that pain is what opens our eyes, wakes us up. Suffering is God's megaphone to rouse a deaf world. So, we are awakened, & see beyond this little world, the 'Shadowlands' as he called them - always in shadow because the 'light' seems always to be shining somewhere else, over the next hill, around the next corner. We seem forever to be chasing that light, never realising that the reason it seems far away is because our eyes are darkened. The Light is everywhere, but we see it only in other people & other places. Chasing after God, without realising He is right here. Frodo feels lost, confused, broken, because he can't see himself as we or as God (thanks for that, Helen) see him. And his 'healing' will come when he is finally able to open his eyes & see what's really there, who's really there. So, it all seems 'wrong' simply because we're not able to see that its 'right' - or at least that its well on its way to being so.

Frodo's story cannot be completed - not till our own is completed. Because till ours is completed we won't be able to see Frodo's complete. Or perhaps that should be we cannot hear the Happy ever after of Frodo's story, till our own is told to its end.

On a personal note, I remember, many years ago, walking by a river on a foggy day. Suddenly I had this sense that our lives are 'stories' God tells us, stories that while they are being told, seem absolutely real. But when they're finished we can step back & laugh, or cry. But the stories will go on till the final word of the tale is spoken. And then we shall live 'happily ever after' beyond the stories, whether or not the story itself ended happily, because, after all, it is only a story. As Lewis put it, 'real life has not begun yet'.

And now I'm so far off topic I expect this to be removed not just to another thread but to another site altogether

[mark12_30]

Julian of Norwich wrote 'Our life here is penance'.

Although I respect Julian, here she and I disagree (I think the whole penance thing is obliterated by the power of the cross.) I think our life here is war. And I think that shows Frodo's state thru a clearer lens. Yes, he had stuff to repent for, but I think it was the War that wounded him most.

To quote an old friend-- "This thread is deep, deep..."

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

I admit that I have come to this thread late, and while I have done my best to catch up on the full debate, the overwhelming volume and complexity of the posts has defeated me (somewhat) – so if I am about to replicate points that have already been made, please do let me know!

At any event, the first thing that has spurred me to post here is the idea of Frodo and repentence. Davem, you ask (and then answer):

Has Frodo anything to repent of? If he claimed the Ring in full knowledge of the implications, then, yes.

The moment at which Frodo claims the Ring has always struck me as being wonderfully ambivalent on just this point:

“‘I have come,’ he said. ‘But I do not choose now to do what I came to do. I will not do this deed. The Ring is mine!”

At first glance it does indeed appear as though Frodo is making his own choice, albeit under huge (perhaps, as Tolkien argued, irresistible pressure) from the Ring. But the language is so loaded. Syntactically the sentences as Frodo utters them are clumsy, but they do allow the following two phrases:

“I do not choose now” and “I will not.” This would seem to open the door to the idea that Frodo’s will has been overmastered by the Ring, and that he is not in control anymore. He is “not choosing” for his “will [is] not” his own anymore.

Also, the pattern of this little scene is suggestive that Frodo is not making his own choice here. It begins with the acknowledgement of his heroic act (“I have come” ), then moves into the above ambiguous expressions of intent (that is, he has lost the ability to choose and will to the Ring), and then he claims the Ring as his own. It is only after he has reached the point where he can “not choose” and “will not” that the he claims the Ring.

So, in answer to your question Davem: no, Frodo has nothing to repent of for he did not claim the Ring, the Ring claimed him!

The other thing that I have had flitting through my mind as I read over the posts is Frodo’s parting words to Sam:

“‘I tried to save the Shire, and it has been saved, but not for me. It must often be so, Sam, when things are in danger: some one has to give them up, lose them, so that others may keep them.’”

Now, before I started ploughing through this thread, I had always thought that this referred to the sacrifices people made in war to preserve or save the homeland. But now I think about it differently: it seems to me that with the end of the War of the Ring, much that is good and beautiful is passing from Middle-Earth: Galadriel, Elrond and Gandalf are all on the same boat with Frodo. These beings are the repository of memory: the memory of Westernesse, and the First Age and of all that is now gone. For them to leave and Frodo to remain means that in Middle-Earth there will no longer be beings who remember the light, but at least one being who remembers the darkness. It’s not that Frodo will remain in Middle-Earth like the blot of ‘sin’ but as a reminder and commemoration of Sauron’s works -- that is, he knows the full nature of the One Ring.

I’m still not entirely happy with this last thought, but it seems intriguing enough (to me at least) to throw out there.

[mark12_30]

Fordim, thank you for a well-crafted and thorough description of Frodo's Sammath Naur experience... I'll bookmark that post.

--mark12_30

ps. Dare I say it: your purely Trilogy-derived position also *happens* to agree with Letters... (ducks flying objects)

[littlemanpoet]

I thought I might regret throwing out Job's words, "I repent in dust in ashes." I do. The analogy is imperfect. To apply it to Frodo is to jump into a bush of thistles, I think.

Now I must take my pruning hook to the thistle bush. (If I may make so bold)

I don't know if Frodo has anything to repent of. Actually, I'm not sure the question is appopriate to ask. Why not? Because so far it's based on an analogy to Job, which I don't find altogether appropriate either, and I'm the one who broached it! Job's repentance in dust and ashes was, I think, if one looks at the context of the book, was because he thought he could do a better job of running the world than his God; which is precisely where Yahweh questions him. This was not at all what Frodo was about. So in that sense, the analogy was poor, and I rescind it (in dust and ashes). :P

Whether Frodo has anything to repent of or not, I must oppose, as kindly as I may, the general direction in Fordim Hedgethistle's post (no wonder I came up with the thistle analogy!). It splits hairs. Such hair splitting is called "casuistry", which developed, at least among Protestants, as a new legalism after the Protestant Reformation. It had to be reformed from. Long story.

I don't think it works to use casuistry at all, and not in the context of Frodo's choice at Mount Doom. Whether stated negatively or positively, a choice was made by Frodo, whether or not his will was overwhelmed by the Ring. Does it make him guilty? The question doesn't matter to me, because I think it's beside the point.

Tolkien's purpose, in part, was to present an impossible task that a normal hobbit (read human being) would not be able to achieve, and would be broken by it. He succeeded admirably, to say the least. I think that he succeeded just as admirably in tapping into the reality of human existence in that all of us, who truly live, have the impossible task of living whole lives. None of us succeed. Any of us who are willing to admit it, do, that we are broken, and need to be made whole. We need the numinous.

LMP

[mark12_30]

I see LMP's point also, about the casuistry. Let me clarify:

When discussing "Does Frodo need to repent", the usual question is, "Of Treason." Tolkien in letters (Letter 191) responded with a resounding "no" to that, which is why Fordim's post appeals to me. WHile Tolkien's logic is not quite the same as Fordim's, there are similarities.

However Tolkien also states (in Letters; I'm still ducking flying objects from the Canon Book Vs Reader thread) that Frodo does need to repent of pride, and, desire to still posess the ring and regret its destruction. But that's very different indeed than having to repent of treason.

I'm not sure how that all weaves into LMP and Fordim's discussion and I don't want to derail that. I hope my references to Letters have not done so. I offer them as "additional information."

Grace and peace, --mark12_30

[The Saucepan Man]

There is a great discussion of whether or not Frodo made a conscious decision to claim the Ring here:

Frodo at Sammath Naur

Personally, I think that the words used (I choose ..., I will ...) indicate that it was a conscious decision on Frodo's part, albeit one which he had no power to resist (anyone for casuistry? ).

[davem]

LMP

Clearly the 'Job question' is a difficult one - a 'surface' reading of the text has God & Satan playing a game, with Job as a pawn - Satan says to God 'I bet I can turn him against you', & God replies, 'Go on then, try it'. Job is then broken by Satan while he & God watch from a safe distance, like a couple of vivisectionists testing a lab rat. When its all over, & Job has lost everything, including his wife & children, God pops up, tells him he's an ignorant, ungrateful worm, but then, in His infinite mercy, decides He'll 'forgive' him & gives him a new family & replaces his livestock.

So, we have the impression of a God who doesn't really care about anything but His own majesty, & plays vicious games with His children's lives.

This, I suppose, was where I was coming from with my original criticism of Eru's treatment of Frodo. Frodo is used by Eru to help get rid of Sauron. He is simply used as a pawn in a 'game' between Eru & first Melkor, then Sauron. Frodo is broken as a result, but Eru, in His infinite mercy, takes Frodo off into the West & fixes him up.

Paul states 'All have sinned, & all have fallen short of the glory of God'. So, did Tolkien feel this statement applied in Middle Earth? If so, then Frodo has sinned. But then we are left with the question of what Frodo's 'sin' actually was. Are we talking about 'original' sin, or individual sin?

If it was 'original' sin, then why should Frodo suffer more than anyone else, be broken more completely, suffer more absolutely? If it is an 'individual' sin, then that sin must be more severe than any other, if the consequence is more severe.

But now we are back to your point - we cannot look at things in this way, because suffering cannot be 'explained' or accounted for logically, or in terms of credits & debits totted up & punishment assigned. Suffering is a fact, 'sin' - at least 'original' sin - is a fact, part of the way things are in the world. Suffering can only be transcended, climbed above, like the storm in Jung's analogy, & the reasons for it left behind. We have to leave suffering behind, as God, in' forgiving' our sins, is effectively leaving them behind, so that in the end we can say 'suffering' was , 'sin' was.

To bring in the idea of 'enchantment' from the 'canonicity' thread, enchantment is what happens when suddenly, for a moment, we step out of the Shadowlands into the Light, out of galadhremmin ennorath - 'tree tangled Middle Earth', & see suddenly the light of the stars of Elbereth. So, 'enchantment' in this sense is not a delusion, but a sudden clear sight of the truth - which we here find in Tolkien's secondary world. The truth 'enchants' us, whether the light that suddenly shines on us has its source in this world or in Middle Earth. In the Shadowlands, in tree tangled Middle Earth we stumble blindly in the dark, & 'sin' & suffer. Frodo, at the end, will not so much be 'healed' as 'enchanted'.

But the 'living happily ever after', as we see in Frodo's story, takes place beyond this world, because here the light shines fitfully, & the enchantment passes often before we realise we were enchanted.

And, yes, I realise I've now adopted the polar opposite position to the one I started out with!

[Dininziliel]

I gave up on the idea of trying to compose a full-fledged post after it took me two hours to compile what follows. I’m simply going to let it stand as a draft of excerpted quotes & responses that struck me along the way in the order that I was struck. The unfolding of this thread as follows was surprising, and also renewed a small hope for the near future of my brain cells.

Then again we can come around the fact that Iluvatar knew what was going to happen, he knew what they were going to choose to do, but I don’t think we can fully understand his mind. [Hookbill the Goomba] A god I can fully understand with the mind I currently have couldn’t do much for me; I need something much, much bigger.

but other beauty and goodness can reach him; it simply cannot be found where he had always looked before. [LMP] As the sayings go, when we do what we’ve always done, we’ll get what we always got; and if we expect different results, we’re insane. (history, anyone?)

it seems to me, that light and joy take up into itself all the darkness and horror and suffering, and transform it into something new. [LMP] There is no joy that does not contain sorrow; joy w/out sorrow = mere happiness. IMO, another way to say what LotR is about is that it is an exemplification of the journey to joy.

. . . rather than causing Arda to be marred, he allowed it to be marred. [Firefoot] Many people have an immature understanding of God and confuse “allowing” w/”causing.” Understanding that small difference makes the whole difference in how we perceive the world, God, and ourselves in relationship to all.

But in creating Arda already flawed by incorporating Melkor's themes Eru increases the likelihood that the Children will choose evil [davem] God allowed the serpent into Eden—did God not know the nature of the creature he created?

If Eru, motivated by a desire to bring about the Good, (& even if He knew that it was the only way to achieve the Good), allows Evil into existence, is He not responsible for the suffering that results along the way to the good? [davem] No, because, we have the power to choose Good or Evil, Love or Fear. We are not doomed, forced, nor tricked into choosing evil/fear no matter how stacked the deck is. There is always the option to choose again. At any moment, we can choose heaven or we can choose hell. And we can do this over and over and over in any order we like. If this isn’t free will, then what is? IMO, it is axiomatic that we are responsible for our part in the consequences of our choices.

In a sense, Frodo IS the Music, rather than being a puppet of Eru. [Lyta_Underhill] Yes! Each of US is a note—the challenge is to play it beautifully. (That’s a quote, but I can’t recall the source.)

how can Eru be justified in choosing Frodo for the task in circumstances in which he (Frodo) cannot possibly concieve the scale of the loss which he will suffer in carrying it out . . [Saucepan Man] If not Frodo, who? Who could possibly know the full scale of the task? Is it possible for anyone at any time to understand the full scale of a task at any point in its undertaking? This is not possible as it is impossible to trace an action to an absolute beginning or to an absolute ending (as this discussion seems to be illustrating so well). [SM cont’d] and in which, once the Ring comes into his possession, he really has very little choice in the matter (if Sauron's victory is to be averted). It doesn’t matter what size the choice is, there is still a choice—if nothing else, we can choose a perspective. Read Viktor Frankl’s Will to Meaning for unforgettable & explicit evidence for this. (By the way, SM, I like your signature!)

And yet the question remains . . . Does Eru bear any responsibility for His choices [davem] This presupposes a sameness of level in being which is something that Lyta_Underhill brought up earlier. I guess a simpler way of saying this is, again, if I can understand God (or even Eru), then God (& Eru) are too small. Or . . . I make myself as big as God/Eru. Does God/Eru make choices as we understand the notion of choice? This is, indeed, a mystery I choose not to discuss this particular matter! (It can only remain a mystery upon which we can only dash our brain cells against in a vain attempt to solve.)

how much freedom do we actually have? Eru will step in to manipulate events & even individuals. [davem] Again, we have to freedom to choose again and again. Bilbo could have chosen to keep the Ring (Frodo did). Gollum could have chosen to forgive Frodo. (He didn’t.) There are lots of choices along the way that could have changed the outcome of the Ring in that year. It may be that God/Eru has “stacked the deck”—if so, I say, “Thank you!” because I can relax in the knowledge that all will be well. The fact that there is pain does not negate this for me, because I am now empowered w/the knowledge that though pain is inevitable, suffering is optional. It’s all a matter of perspective, aka choice! You can either blame God/Eru for what seems to be wrong on earth/ME, or you can be grateful for everything just as it is. [Din bows to Buddha]

Job, who lost everything, asked all kinds of "why" questions, and finally saw God; once he did, he no longer needed the question answered; having seen God was his answer. [LMP] Exactly. Well put!

The storm is still going on, but you can watch it from a safe distance. Perspective. [davem] Exactly.

Is he actually 'healed' in the sense of having what was wrong with him put right, or do his wounds remain forever, but he himself is made different by having had them inflicted on him, suffering them? [davem] Is there really a preferable difference (what is healing if it is not a transformation?), or is all this actually about not liking the way we perceive that God/Eru does things?

Completeness seems like the only possible conclusion to suffering, and it seems to be what Tolkien is suggesting not only for Frodo, but for Sam and the rest of the Fellowship as well. [LMP] Exactly. And for us, too. Suffering leads to transformation (when Love is chosen over fear); transformation leads to completeness; completeness = wholeness; wholeness = atonement (at-one-ment) = as one w/God = Heaven.

I suppose part of the problem is that LotR ends before we see Frodo's final state. [davem] I am reminded of Christ’s words to Thomas—“Must you see to believe?” If we could know by somehow seeing what has been “unseeable” does that not nullify free will? If I can know the answer to all my questions through my senses & mind (which is informed & shaped by the senses), then . . .think about it.

wounds remain ugly because they are not illuminated [davem] Exactly!

So, we can never see God in ourselves, only in those around us. [davem] While I’m further back on the journey than what I’m about to say, I sometimes think I’m on the road to it: Is there a difference between God outside and God inside? Do we not see ourselves in others and others in ourselves?

Has Frodo anything to repent of? [davem] Yes, in the sense of atonement, for believing that there is a separation between self & God and choosing self instead of God as evidenced when he claimed the Ring at Doom, thus necessitating the suffering for his transformation. Which brings us full circle to the beginning of this thread . . .

“I do not choose now” and “I will not.” This would seem to open the door to the idea that Frodo’s will has been overmastered by the Ring, and that he is not in control anymore. He is “not choosing” for his “will [is] not” his own anymore. [Fordim] As Tolkien has said, Frodo was overmatched, and thus doomed (as are we all when going mano a mano w/pure evil). However, he made the choices leading to that point. These choices were made of good & noble stuff at first (choosing others/Love), then slowly changed as he came nearer to Mt. Doom—he was choosing personal self, which resulted in the ultimate & inevitable abandonment of Higher Self (self in the world vs. Self in God). This is, IMO, the nature of Frodo’s wound/suffering.

So, 'enchantment' in this sense is not a delusion, but a sudden clear sight of the truth - which we here find in Tolkien's secondary world.. . Frodo, at the end, will not so much be 'healed' as 'enchanted'. [davem] Wow, I like this notion. I started checking out the Canonicity thread, but did a quick U-turn back to this one when I saw how deep Canonicity was. I’m going to complete my U-ee and do a 360! [And about time, too, exclaimed the chorus of exasperated hobbits! ]

[littlemanpoet]

davem: how much freedom do we actually have? Eru will step in to manipulate events & even individuals.

din: Again, we have freedom to choose again and again. Bilbo could have chosen to keep the Ring (Frodo did). Gollum could have chosen to forgive Frodo. (He didn’t.) There are lots of choices along the way that could have changed the outcome of the Ring in that year. It may be that God/Eru has “stacked the deck”—if so, I say, “Thank you!” because I can relax in the knowledge that all will be well.

LMP: Sorry, but I must take exception to God "stacking the deck". By giving us free will, that is rendered impossible. Every creature born with free will is one more creature who limits God's omnipotence, and it appears that that's the way God wants it. Now, just in case it occurred to anyone, to posit that God actually retains God's omnipotence by making the chooser choose what the chooser chooses, flouts free will, not to mention good sense, rendering human life a farce, and pain and suffering reason enough to commit suicide; which is no solution, because if one's spirit continues after physical death in a universe constructed like that, we're all doomed in an existence governed by a God worse than Melkor. So it can't possibly be that way. I can't believe in that kind of God, certainly not to try and save some piece of dearly loved traditional doctrine!

>din: The fact that there is pain does not negate this for me, because I am
>now empowered w/the knowledge that though pain is inevitable, suffering
>is optional. It’s all a matter of perspective, aka choice! You can
>either blame God/Eru for what seems to be wrong on earth/ME, or you can
>be grateful for everything just as it is. [Din bows to Buddha]
>
>
LMP: Maybe this is just a matter of semantics, but it appears that you're saying that suffering is a choice based on the perspective of the one experiencing pain. Buddhist or not, it seems to me that such thinking confounds good sense (apologies to all Buddhists). Example: Christ suffered on the cross. To use this thinking, all he had to do was get the right perspective and it wouldn't have hurt so bad? A mother suffering the pains of childbirth: just put her mind in the right frame and she won't suffer from the pain of ripped muscle? An abused spouse or starved child - all they have to do is think about it the right way? Need I go further with the examples? Buddhism doesn't seem to touch suffering in a satisfactory manner. Experiencing pain is passive while suffering is active? Sorry, it just sounds offensive. I see a clear distinction between suffering real agony and the next step of having a bad attitude about it. It's true that the early Christians actually sang praises to God while they were being tortured to death, but they considered it an honor because of their faith; they were being tortured precisely because of their faith, which had been promised to them by Christ as a kind of sacrifice of praise they could offer to God. Yes, it sounds weird to us moderns, but I can see the how and why of that a lot better than a beaten wife who never chose that her husband should beat her. She suffers, no matter what her attitude about it is.

>davem: Is he actually 'healed' in the sense of having what was wrong with him put right, or do his wounds remain forever, but he himself is made different by having had them inflicted on him, suffering them?
>
din: Is there really a preferable difference (what is healing if it is not a transformation?), or is all this actually about not liking the way we perceive that God/Eru does things?

LMP: I really think that this is not about not liking the way God does things; rather, it's about trying to figure out a way to explain suffering such that we can abide living in a universe that such a God created. I think davem is asking the right kind of question here. "Made different" seems to imply: transformed in such a way that the pain suffered no longer has power over Frodo - or me.

>LMP: Completeness seems like the only possible conclusion to suffering, and it seems to be what Tolkien is suggesting not only for Frodo, but for Sam and the rest of the Fellowship as well.
>
din: Exactly. And for us, too. Suffering leads to transformation (when Love is chosen over fear); transformation leads to completeness; completeness = wholeness; wholeness = atonement (at-one-ment) = as one w/God = Heaven.

LMP: love chosen over fear. Quite so. It's fear, not hate, that is love's true opposite. Hate and anger are just masks to hide fear.

>davem: I suppose part of the problem is that LotR ends before we see Frodo's final state.
>
din: I am reminded of Christ’s words to Thomas—“Must you see to believe?” If we could know by somehow seeing what has been “unseeable” does that not nullify free will?

LMP: No, I think enhanced perception enables free will, which is too often enslaved by fear. I am saying that there are many times when we don't have free will because our wills are overcome by fear and its masks, hate and anger. Boromir is about as good an example of this, in Lorien, as anyone.

din: If I can know the answer to all my questions through my senses & mind (which is informed & shaped by the senses), then . . .think about it.

LMP: There's a difference between knowing answers to ALL my questions, and knowing answers to the MOST PRESSING questions that confound living, such as what to do with unjust suffering; by whatever means of enhanced perception.

>din: Is there a difference between God outside and God inside? Do we not see ourselves in others and others in ourselves?
>
>
LMP: I don't think it's avoidable. If we love ourselves, we view others as full of love. If we fear ourselves, we view others in fear. If we see God in others, they see God in us. Sure, we see others generally as they are, but we always carry a bit of ourselves into them. Don't you think?

>davem: Has Frodo anything to repent of?
>
din: Yes, in the sense of atonement, for believing that there is a separation between self & God and choosing self instead of God as evidenced when he claimed the Ring at Doom, thus necessitating the suffering for his transformation.

LMP: But isn't there a difference between believing there's a separation, and causing one? Maybe I'm understanding the word "separation" differently than you, din. Am I right in understanding that you're re not talking about mere separateness, but a dis-integration that should not be there? How did it get into Frodo? Was it there from the start? Or did it occur from the incessant power of the Ring?

>Fordim: “I do not choose now” and “I will not.” This would seem to open the door to the idea that Frodo’s will has been overmastered by the Ring, and that he is not in control anymore. He is “not choosing” for his “will [is] not” his own anymore.
>
din: As Tolkien has said, Frodo was overmatched, and thus doomed (as are we all when going mano a mano w/pure evil). However, he made the choices leading to that point. These choices were made of good & noble stuff at first (choosing others/Love), then slowly changed as he came nearer to Mt. Doom—he was choosing personal self, which resulted in the ultimate & inevitable abandonment of Higher Self (self in the world vs. Self in God). This is, IMO, the nature of Frodo’s wound/suffering.

LMP: But you're still saying that he was at fault for something he couldn't avoid because he was no match for it in the first place. So his "sin", as it were, was to volunteer to do something that everyone knew he couldn't. This choice was made at the Council fo Elrond, and the Elves, Gandalf, and everybody but Boromir, were impressed with Frodo's selflessness. Thus his "sin" is actually self-sacrifice. Since when does one need to repent of self-sacrifice, or am I being perverse?