Ilúvatar good & evil

[Ruinel]

I've been thinking lately about Ilúvatar/Eru. Most people like to think of him as being like the modern Christian god: all good, benevolent, loving.

However, a couple of things come to mind. In the story of the creation of Eá, Eru creates the Valar. Most of them are good and one is evil. He also creates the Maiar. Again, some good, some more prone to evil. In addition, many evil beings came from Melkor (the Orcs).

Something else I thought of also, Eru takes a back seat to his creation. Only the Valar have any hand in it at all, from the trees to the war with Melkor. When Christians pray, they pray to their god, not to any sub-gods. So, in this respect, Eru is different from the modern Christian god. (This is just a side note, you may discuss this if you wish.)

I pose a question: if all things were made by Eru, then doesn't evil also come from Eru?

If this is true, then Eru is more dimensional than just the picture of the modern Christian god.

[Beor]

Actually, I always thought of the same kind of stuff, sort of along a Paradise Lost sort of line.

And, I will probably be smoten for this, but the Christian God created all things too, so didnt he create evil?

I do agree with you, and sone could probably argue that Melkor is to be pitied too, for being punished for trying to branch out

[Twista]

Im assuming the Evil came by accident, and created its self. You cant have one without the other remember....

[brownjenkins]

this part from the silmarillion makes me think along similar lines

But now Iluvatar sat and hearkened, and for a great while it seemed good to him, for in the music there were no flaws. But as the theme progressed, it came into the heart of Melkor to interweave matters of his own imagining that were not in accord with the theme of Iluvatar; for he sought therein to increase the power and glory of the part assigned to himself. To Melkor among the Ainur had been given the greatest gifts of power and knowledge, and he had a share in all the gifts of his brethren. He had gone often alone into the void places seeking the Imperishable Flame; for desire grew hot within him to bring into Being things of his own, and it seemed to him that Iluvatar took no thought for the Void, and he was impatient of its emptiness. Yet he found not the Fire, for it is with Iluvatar. But being alone he had begun to conceive thoughts of his own unlike those of his brethren.

one could say that this was evidence of melkor's evil... but reading the part i marked in bold, i wonder if by giving melkor the gifts he did, eru may have created a lesser but equal being... passing along the "ego" that eru himself obviously possessed

eru made a being that had the same desire to be the supreme power behind creation as eru had himself... so it became more of a power struggle between the two of them than "evil"

this was a struggle that melkor was doomed to lose because he did not possess the power of eru... but by the same token, a struggle melkor could not put aside because of the gifts eru had given him

you can almost feel a bit sorry for him (as it seems manwe did)

[Tuor of Gondolin]

My interpretation is different (Aside from Tolkien needing bad guys for conflict in a story).
The problem involves free will. To have effective free will one must have agents capable of choosing good or evil, and if they choose to do evil the results, to some extent, must also be allowed (if all efforts by Morgoth et. al. to dominate/destroy others were instantly negated by Eru then there would be no real free will). But in Middle-earth history you do see Eru, or the Valar, acting to eventually thwart evil agents desires, though this may take a long time (see Second Age history especially). In The Hobbit and LOTR you see this subtle working to limit the damage done by Sauron (Bilbo finding the Ring, Gandalf the White returning, etc.) I think it's clear the essential "theology" of Middle-earth is not Manichaen but rather pre-Christian Christian. There are some quotes to that effect somewhere in "Letters."

[Radagast The Brown]

Originally posted by Tuor of Gondolin
My interpretation is different (Aside from Tolkien needing bad guys for conflict in a story).
The problem involves free will. To have effective free will one must have agents capable of choosing good or evil, and if they choose to do evil the results, to some extent, must also be allowed (if all efforts by Morgoth et. al. to dominate/destroy others were instantly negated by Eru then there would be no real free will). But in Middle-earth history you do see Eru, or the Valar, acting to eventually thwart evil agents desires, though this may take a long time (see Second Age history especially). In The Hobbit and LOTR you see this subtle working to limit the damage done by Sauron (Bilbo finding the Ring, Gandalf the White returning, etc.) I think it's clear the essential "theology" of Middle-earth is not Manichaen but rather pre-Christian Christian. There are some quotes to that effect somewhere in "Letters."

I agree.
I also think it was the free will of Melkor. Melkor's thoughts didn't come from Eru, in my believe, and Eru didn't make Melkor any choices. Melkor wanted to rule ME and the world the Valar the himself built from free will.

I think the 'real' god, the one you call christian (isn't he/she/it the same as jewish?) do not decided for people what they should do - the people make the choices, for good and bad. Same with Melkor, and the maiar (while the orcs are evil in their blood, I think)

[Tuor of Gondolin]

Originally posted by Radagast the Brown
I think the 'real' god, the one you call christian (isn't he/she/it the same as jewish?) do not decided for people what they should do - the people make the choices, for good and bad.
___________________________
Yes. A more inclusive phrase would be people of the Book (to include Christianity, Judaism, and Islam). But I'm not sure if eastern religious views (Buddhism, Taoism etc.) or animists (I believe there are some such beliefs still held in parts of Africa at least) would share good/evil free will views or if they have different theological worldviews.

[MasterMothra]

This is a very thought provoking post. I have contemplated both sidesfrom time to time. I know free will is the basic argument against Eru having a part in the creation of evil, but there are good arguments for his involvement also. Where good and evil are clearly defined I think there is a free will choice to do either, but in Melkors case things are a little more complicated.
When Melkor and the other Valar were created there was no evil, no tree of knowledge so to speak. So where did Melkor get these desires he is so famous for? The void could be used as an argument, but wasnt that a creation of Eru? Since the Valar could not create, without Eru's involvement, how then could Melkor conceive these evil thoughts on his own?
When the Valar came to be they were like children, they didnt know why they sang so beautifully, they just did because of the gifts they were given by their creater. the music Melkor made was different from the others. Was that bad, or was he using the gift he had been given by Eru? Aule didnt choose to like the earth and metals, nor did Ulmo decide to like water. It came naturally to both of them.
In the beginning I dont think Melkor, or any of the other Valar for that matter, had a choice of free will. They were pursuing their talents that were given to them by Eru. After some time had come to pass, I believe they chose more the path they would take in life. When it became obvious to Melkor that his actions were offensive to Eru and detrimental to the good of Middle Earth, I think Melkor made a free will choice to pursue those endeavors and therefore became responsible for the consequences of his actions.

Of course, these are simply my own observations.

[Ruinel]

MasterMortha, I agree. This is what I was thinking, also.

The Valar are each prone to some gift. Even Melkor.

And in the void, there was nothing but Eru. All things were created by him. That would mean the propensity to do good and evil, equally. It could be that Melkor, in receiving more gifts than the other Valar also obtained more propensity to do evil.


[b]Radagast the Brown[/i]: to answer your question, yes... they are the same god (Christian and Jewish).

[Artanis]

I agree with brownjemkins to some extent, I think that of the Valar, Melkor was the one most likely to 'fall', because he was the most powerful. So powerful that he wanted to "create things of his own", and believed himself capable of doing it. This he did not wish to do out of evil intentions. As I see it his 'sin' was to try to be equal to Eru, he refused to recognise his own limits (Aule did in fact make the same mistake, though he repented). But this was something he chose to do, I do not believe he was determined to become evil.

Something else I thought of also, Eru takes a back seat to his creation. Only the Valar have any hand in it at all, from the trees to the war with Melkor.

Ruinel, I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you thinking of the music which the Ainur made? The themes came from Eru. Remember that the music was as fate to all things within Arda, except for Men.

[brownjenkins]

good points MasterMothra

i have a hard time thinking anyone would create evil... and if that was the intention, why not do it more directly?

i don't really buy the "you must have evil to have good argument" either... maybe one of the things eru gave to melkor was his own pride and drive to be the controlling force

i wonder if eru could have gone about things in a different and more open way... this may have changed the way things turned out... in the "music", the ainur are very much his instruments, or at best, performers in a piece he directed... and rightly so, some might say

that said, he may have been better served by letting melkor and the others into his plans... allowing them to contribute in a more active way and thus satisfy the desire he placed within his children to achieve the greatness of their parent with a certain degree of independence

eru may have made melkor a little too much like himself

[Artanis]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
i have a hard time thinking anyone would create evil...

I tend to see good and evil as potentials that simply exist within all, rather than being created by some 'superbeing'. I would say Eru had the potential of performing both good and evil actions, and so had all the Ainur. Melkor's desire was not evil in itself, but he chose to follow his desire, and this choice led to evil results.

that said, he may have been better served by letting melkor and the others into his plans... allowing them to contribute in a more active way and thus satisfy the desire he placed within his children to achieve the greatness of their parent with a certain degree of independence

I think very few, if any, of the Ainur possessed enough knowledge to contribute more actively than they did. Not even Melkor and Manwë would have accomplished much imo. Maybe Ulmo, who was most skilled of them all in music. And if Melkor had been given the chance of participating more actively, would he then have been satisfied, or would he lust for even more power? Who knows?

[Fat middle]

I do think that some aspects of the "modern Christian God" (I don't know why do you say "modern", Ruinel) of the God of the Book can be clearly seen in Eru. I think that when Tolkien was writting the Ainulindale he wanted to avoid any particular refference to christianism (= christian religion), but he borrowed some elements of a "christian phillosophy", specially the Aquinas' phillosophical explanation of God (his "natural theology"). Reading the Letters one can see that Tolkien knew very well the Aquinas phillosophy.

For Thomas Aquinas, the phillosophical view of God was the absolute of being, the perfect being, the plenitud of being. Good (like Truth, Beauty and others) is an aspect of being (IOW, being seen from a certain point of view). Therefore, God is the perfect goodness, the plenitude of goodness, where no evil can be found. He cannot do any evil, but that's just the opposite of a limitation.

In the Creation, God creates limited beings from nothing. Those beings are different from him. Those beings are not perfect, but some of them are able to grow in perfection. How? using their free will to adequate their being to the role that the Perfect Being designed for them.

So, the valar were limited beings with free will. They "participated" (another Aquinas' concept) in different ways of Eru's plenitude. This may be what means "Manwë was the brother of Melkor in the mind of Ilúvatar". Some are nearer to the plenitude than others.

While playing the music that Eru had designed, they chose (free will) to play their appointed role or not. Some of them are more or less conscious of their own disagreement (Melkor) and some not.

Conscious disagreement leads to moral evil. Unconscious disagreement (the Valar summoning the elves, perhaps) leads only to "phisical" evil.

Okay. Let's stop now. That's dense enough and probably wrong enough

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
good points MasterMothra

i have a hard time thinking anyone would create evil... and if that was the intention, why not do it more directly?

i don't really buy the "you must have evil to have good argument" either... maybe one of the things eru gave to melkor was his own pride and drive to be the controlling force...

...eru may have made melkor a little too much like himself

I don't think that you must have evil to have good, but you can not define one without the other. You can not know what good is without evil.

I think you are right, that Eru made Melkor too much like himself, gave him more gifts than the other Valar. Yet, he doesn't have the same level of power to match Eru (not even close). He has just enough to realize he is more powerful than the other Valar, but too little to realize his own ambition (which I think came with the gifts that Eru gave him). It soured him and turned him against what was right, and made him who he was. Well, that's my opinion anyway.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Fat middle
I do think that some aspects of the "modern Christian God" (I don't know why do you say "modern", Ruinel ) of the God of the Book can be clearly seen in Eru. I think that when Tolkien was writting the Ainulindale he wanted to avoid any particular refference to christianism (= christian religion), but he borrowed some elements of a "christian phillosophy", specially the Aquinas' phillosophical explanation of God (his "natural theology"). Reading the Letters one can see that Tolkien knew very well the Aquinas phillosophy.

I said "modern" because looking at old writings, the Christian god was not always thought of as kind and loving, but vengeful and wrathful if you didn't follow his will.

What I was saying is that some believe that Tolkien patterned Eru after the modern Christian god. I wasn't saying that he actually did.

I suppose if you were making a god, there would be certain qualities that you'd want him/her to have. Loving, benevolent and creative... all positive qualities. As for vengeful and wrathful, that could be used to keep the 'flock' in line and to remind the 'flock' that their enemies will suffer should they be attacked (making them feel safer in a more or less harsh world), so also useful qualities as well.

Eru didn't have the latter qualities. Upon reading The Sil, I got the impression that Eru started his creation and handed it over to the Valar to finish up (do the details, I suppose). He never takes an active roll in protecting the Children or Middle Earth. He leaves it to finish out, like watching a marble roll down a bumpy hill... rolling here, being diverted, then rolling there.

[Tuor of Gondolin]

Originally posted by Ruinel
Eru didn't have the latter qualities. Upon reading The Sil, I got the impression that Eru started his creation and handed it over to the Valar to finish up (do the details, I suppose). He never takes an active roll in protecting the Children or Middle Earth. He leaves it to finish out, like watching a marble roll down a bumpy hill... rolling here, being diverted, then rolling there.
____________________________
I think that's going too far, though it was Tolikien's general idea to have Iluvatar become not as "hands on" as in early Ea.
There are clear hints of Iluvatar (not the Valar) intervening in the time of the War of the Ring (Bilbo's finding the Ring and especially the return of Gandalf).

From "Letters" #181
"There is no embodiment of the One, of God, who indeed remains remote, outside the World, and only directly accessible to the Valar or Rulers.....But the One retains all ultimate authority, and (or so it seems as viewed in serial time (a possible definition of a 'miracle').".....the situation became so much the worse by the fall of Saruman, that the 'good' were obliged to greater effort and sacrifice. Thus Gandalf faced and suffered death; and came back or was sent back, as he says, with enhanced power."

And "Letters" #183
"In The Lord of the Rings the conflict is not basically about 'freedom', though that is naturally involved. It is about God, and His sole right to divine honour. The Elder and the Numenoreans believed in The One, the true God, and held worship of any other person an abomination, Sauron desired to be a God-King, and was held to be this by his servants. If he had been victorious he would have demanded divine honour from all rational creatures and absolut tempral power over the whole world."

And in "Letters" # 156 (to Robert Murray, S.J.)
"I have purposely kept all allusions to the highest matters down to mere hints, perceptible only by the most attentive, or kept them under unexplained symbolic forms. So God and the 'angelic' gods, the Lords or Powers of the West, only peep through in such places as Gandalf's conversation with Frodo: 'behind that there was something else at work, beyond any design of the Ring-maker's'; or in Faramir's Numenorean grace at dinner."

[Sister Golden Hair]

This made me think of the discussion between Finrod and Andreth in the Athrabeth. Perhaps the Valar were made to do what Eru could not, because of who he was and where he was. Does not Andreth and Finrod discuss this point, saying that Eru is outside and cannot enter in without destroying the world? Something like that. Finrod states something like comparing it to a picture or a story, where the author/artist is a already in it, and outside of it. I wish I had MR handy right now, I would find the quote. Maybe someone could put it up, or maybe I'll find it later and put it up to clarify my point. Anyway, what I am saying based on Finrod and Andreth's discussion, is that perhaps the Ainur were needed to complete the creation because Eru was unable to wholely enter into it 100%.

Am I making sense here. This is a deep subject.

[Valandil]

My guess is just that Tolkien sort of wanted 'the best of both worlds'... he was creating a 'mythology' - and probably wanted to have the various 'gods' of other mythologies; Greek, Norse, etc. YET, as a devout Christian himself, he wanted to have a 'God' who was truly the ultimate Creator. So we have Eru in the role of 'God' and the Valar as mythological 'gods' or arch-angels, or whatever.

As far as evil - and whether or not Eru created evil by creating Melkor - I would say, as others have a bit, that Tolkien was following principles of Judeo-Christian thought, wherein the Creator made other beings whom He granted 'free will' - and that they were even given lattitude within that 'free will' to do what was wrong, if they so chose.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

my view was that it was melkor's power that led to his fall:
that saying comes to mind;
power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely

i also feel that eru did not create good or evil specifically, just that when he created anything, they just came into being naturally
i.e: good was created, therefore evil came naturally as a complement

[Ruinel]

The Valar were created by Eru. Before they were created, there was only Eru. Since Melkor's desires caused him to do evil, then is it safe to say that there was "evolution" going on? What I'm saying is, that if Eru didn't create (or bring with him) Evil, then Evil must have evolved from what he originally created. Same with Good.

Perhaps it was like a single species of bird, that was somehow seperated over eons and as the two environments change, so do the characteristics which enable the birds to survive in two environments, through natural selection.

So, perhaps Eru enstilled the same propensities as he had, and that was, Goodness. And when Melkor was created by Eru, he was instilled with more Gifts. As Melkor realized his Gifts were different, ambition evolved in him, and so did the propensity to do Evil.