Iluvatar made Melkor evil?

[Wayfarer]

Quenya for numenor is 'Atalante'. I rest my case.

Now, let me give you a few examples of what allegory is and is not:

The Pilgrims Progress is an allegory. The protagonist, Christian, represents christians on the road to heaven, 'the celestial city'.
Paradise Lost is not an allegory. The protagonist, Adam, does not represent anybody else. He is literally the same Adam as in the bible. He travels through hell, which does not represent anything other than itself.

The difference is not in the naming of things, but in the presentation, Aslan is Christ represented as a lion. Eru is God, represented as God.

[Cirdan]

I found this quote in The Book of Lost Tales.

Then said Iluvatar: "The story I have laid before you, and the great region of beauty that I have described unto you as the place where all that history might be unfolded and enacted, is related as it were an outline."

This line indicates a knowledge of what can and cannot happen but not an absolute pre-destiny of individual events. Omniscience doesn't imply prior knowledge but only an awareness of all things and events in the immediate and the possibilities that could arise. That the future is already played out and god can fastforward in time is patiently in contradiction to free will. Many things can be planed to occur by an omnipotent being and thus become an inevitability;this does not mean they have already happened. Iluvatar knows the end game of his creation because he plans it to be that way, one way or another.

Free will doesn't mean unconstrained. The creation of free will implies a priori existence of evil. In ME the variable of free will is constrained at times by the prophesies. Earendil's coming to Arda is fortold and his life is affected by the efforts of Ulmo to direct Tuor to Gondolin. All the events that lead to Earendil's subsequent birth and flight from Gondolin of Earendil must play out in a specific way for the final result to occur. Even though Tour warns Turgon of the councils of Ulmo he is ignored. Gondolin must fall so that Earendil can be brought to the sea after the flight from Gondolin. This begs the question as to whether Earendil would have come in some other way to his destiny. Is it the means we do not know or is the free will receding at times to the interference of the Ainur and Iluvatar.

Another account in BoLT:

"Who was Iluvatar" said Eriol. "Was he of the Gods?"
"Nay," said Rumil, "that he was not, for he made them. Iluvatar is the Lord for Always who dwells beyond the world; who made it and is not of it or in it, but loves it."

While there are similarities between Iluvatar and the Christian god it is evident by the creation of a polytheist pantheon of deities associated to powers of nature, that the theism of ME was created not as religion but as pseudo-history and mythology. Iluvatar is neither as allegory or as actuality the same as god.

The fact that Melkor was a deity created without a corrupting influence indicates his curruption came from within. He manefested evil where none is shown to exist before. It must have been part of his creation and therefore it came from Iluvatar. Melkor did have may have had a choice but if the evil did not come from within then where?

[Lief Erikson]

Cirdan, MasterMothra, the question you've raised about the contradiction between free will and Ilúvatar's future knowledge is one that RÃ*an and I have each given many, many posts explaining the answer to already in this thread. That's the only reason why we're reluctant to explain it again. Our previous posts on the subject are as good as anything we could do now. Perhaps neither of you were there during the earlier pages of this discussion?

However, to prevent you from having to look over all of those other pages, I'll give you another example of why having knowledge of a decision someone else will make doesn't mean that you made the decision yourself, and that they have no choice.

If someone named Mike tells you that they're going to go to the bank, then you now know that they're going to do it. You know that they're going to go to the bank. The decision wasn't yours, but that doesn't alter your foreknowledge. Mike's decision was made, not yours. Thus you aren't making his mind up for him.

People can change their minds about things; they can make whatever decision they want to make. Perhaps you know Mike really well though, so you know that he won't change his mind. So you know that he's going to go to the bank, and that he won't change his mind, but even though you know with a high degree of certainty what he's going to do, you still aren't making his mind up for him.

With a god like Ilúvatar who has all knowledge, it's simply taking this one step further. I've been using human examples to make everything clear. Ilúvatar has foreknowledge, but as I demonstrated in my most recent example, that doesn't mean he's forcing you around. Just because Ilúvatar knows what someone will do doesn't mean he's making them do it. He could force everyone to do what he pleased, but that would destroy free will. But what I'm demonstrating is that he doesn't need to destroy free will to know what is going to happen.

Now let's say you go up to someone named Becky. "Where's Mike going?" she asks.

"He's going to the bank," you inform her.

A prophesy has taken place (Although Silmarillion and Biblical prophesies are different from this because of the level and way of knowing, I think the example should demonstrate my point). You're not making Mike go to the bank, and Becky knows now what Mike is going to do. Her foreknowledge doesn't alter Mike's action, and neither does yours.

Now let's say you know that going to the bank could be very bad for Mike. You know he's going to the bank (Like the prophesy of the fall of Gondolin), so perhaps you tell Becky to tell Mike not to go to the bank or something bad will happen. She goes and tells him. He's been forewarned about the future, and now he has a decision to make, whether to heed the warning or to ignore it.

All of these things take place without anyone having any control over anyone else. Prophesies, future knowledge, all of these things aren't contradictory with free will.

[Cirdan]

I did read all the thread last night. I was up with a sick kid. The question of causality and the creation event effects the excercise of free will. What part of the design of the creator is represented in the causal chain and how much is free will. Free will is a matter of degrees and few can make unfettered choices. My example from the Silmarillion regarding Earendil illustrates how the gods did intervene to achieve the desired result. The more active god is in the affairs of the beings in it's charge the less free will excercised. Inevitable choices only give the illusion of choice. Iluvatar is clearly stating that wheere his creation design leaves off (the outline) is where the free will is excercised. The intent is to create outside the design and that is the purpose of the free will of the Ainur. Melkor's ability to be evil is within the design of Iluvatar. Without an outside corrupting force Melkor originates evil. The ability to create evil is part of the design. Iluvatar either knows he is creating an evil being or not. If there is omniscience then there is benign evil in the creation of Melkor. The indication I see is that there are some events that are inevitable and some that are not. Iluvatar has a framework for operating within his creation. He also wants the inhabitants to create, to fill in the outline. Foreknowledge of this external creation as a result of design is intent. Melkor has no knowledge of punishment or consequence to his rebellious behavior because there is nothing stating this explicitly and he is not omniscient.

That's it for me for now. I'll be back after I get some sleep. zzzzzz

[Lief Erikson]

I actually think that your "framework and filling in" theory is incorrect. Ilúvatar's taking action doesn't destroy free will, and I have some examples of this.

Through Frodo, Ilúvatar brought down Sauron. Frodo's action was entirely free will, yet Ilúvatar had it planned way in advance, when Bilbo first found the Ring. Gandalf said that a higher authority meant him to have it, and that this same authority meant for Bilbo to find it. Because, as Wayfarer said, Ilúvatar can see all things and knows everything, he can plan in advance. He can use the smallest people for great things, and lift them up over impossible odds to do wonders. He waited for Earendil's simple act of obedience in coming back and asking for forgiveness for the Noldor and requesting help before he used the Valar to destroy Morgoth. He waited for the Valar to ask for his aid before he came to their defense and destroyed Ar-Pharazon's hosts.

For example, if you know that Mike is going to the bank, you know you will soon have some money, so you can plan to go to the grocerie store when he gets back. In preparation, you get your things together and are ready to go when he returns. You didn't make him go to the bank, but you can do what you please in events because you know he is going to take this action.

Ilúvatar can work through people and his will being done doesn't have to destroy free will at all. It can be an overall purpose, or design. He can raise up people who have complete free will, but whose free will is in accord with his design, to do his purposes. Free will isn't negated by his taking action.

Then said Iluvatar: "The story I have laid before you, and the great region of beauty that I have described unto you as the place where all that history might be unfolded and enacted, is related as it were an outline."

I actually think that you're reading more into this than is actually there. His commanding the larger events doesn't negate free will in the larger things. Frodo's free will wasn't destroyed by his being raised up by Ilúvatar to destroy the Ring. I have never seen any action of his, big or small, which disturbs the free will of his creations in any way.

What the passage says is that Ilúvatar has shown the person he's talking to what history's outline is. It doesn't say that he doesn't know what will happen in the smaller areas, or that he doesn't act in the smaller areas as well (Galadriel's providential gift to Sam of the box of dust and seed from Lothlorien could be taken as a kind blessing from Ilúvatar, as could other things). It simply says that he hasn't told the listener all of what will happen, it doesn't imply that he himself doesn't know, or that his design isn't visible in the smaller things either.

Ilúvatar has related the outline of the greater events to the listener. He hasn't told the smaller things, but that doesn't mean he doesn't work with them and do things and know things. Free will isn't disturbed by close interaction of Ilúvatar with his works, and the passage you've given simply means that Ilúvatar has told the basic story (The abriged version, as it were) to the person he's speaking to.

Maybe if I take the sentence and edit out the middle part of it for a moment you'll get a clearer sight of this:

Then said Iluvatar: "The story I have laid before you is related as it were an outline."

Now let's look at the remaining part in the light of this new meaning, which is that only the outline (For that is all Ilúvatar says he has related) is revealed.

and the great region of beauty that I have described unto you as the place where all that history might be unfolded and enacted

Look at that closely. Ilúvatar says that all history might be unfolded within this story. Large and small actions. He simply has revealed the outline of it, but that doesn't in any way imply the rest of what you're saying the passage means, Cirdan.

[Wayfarer]

This line indicates a knowledge of what can and cannot happen but not an absolute pre-destiny of individual events. Omniscience doesn't imply prior knowledge but only an awareness of all things and events in the immediate and the possibilities that could arise.

Not an absolute predestiny, no. The bottom line is that many choices are not made by eru, but by ainur, or elves, or humans. This does not mean that eru has limited knowledge of what will happen.

In fact, your entire line of argument restson a faulty assumption: That forknowledge and free will are mutually exclusive. There is really no reason to think that is the case.

You seem to believe that forknowledge causes the events which it predicts, in which case it negates free will. However, it is far mor satisfactory to say that the events cause the forknowledge, in which case the two are compatable

The fact that Melkor was a deity created without a corrupting influence indicates his curruption came from within. He manefested evil where none is shown to exist before. It must have been part of his creation and therefore it came from Iluvatar.

Let me get this straight. Eru creats melkor as part of his design. Melkor rebels against erus design. So therefore Melkor's rebellion against Eru's design is part of eru's design? Does that make sense?

Melkor's ability to be evil is within the design of Iluvatar.

I agree. Melkor was created with the ability to rebel. But it does not follow that because he was made with the ability to rebel, that he was intended to rebel all along. If melkor was created with the intention that he rebel, how does THAT allow for free will?

...the gods did intervene to achieve the desired result. The more active god is in the affairs of the beings in it's charge the less free will excercised.

Someone working to make something happen does not negate free will.

In you example, Ulmo works to make one thing happen. Tuor works to make another thing happen. But it is Turgon who, in the excercise of free will, chooses what to do.

It is both yes and no. Melkor did strip his minions of free will, but did Manwe or Ulmo? I don't believe you can show any evidence of them forcing thier will on anybody. In fact, you can look at examples like feanor, where it arguably would have been better for them to force him to do something different.

The fact remains that each creature is made with a specific purpose. But they were also created with free will-including the ability to not carry out that purpose. The fact that some choose to excercise that option does not mean that they were not intended to carry out another purpose, any more than the fact that some choose not to excercise it means that they don't have free will.

One last point: We can know what choices were made in the past. The fact that we know what choices were made does not negate the fact that they were choices.

I do not view the future as any different from the past. It is simple we, from our vantage point in the present, cannot see it as clearly. But the fact is that whatever choices we're going to make, we're going to make them. In that sense the future is as pre-determined as the past. The question of free will is who does the deciding.

Sleep well, my bearded freind. You're not going to get any rest on this issue. ]: )

[Rían]

Originally posted by MasterMothra
"do we have the ability to change the path that god has seen, or are we bound by the path that god has already seen? " i just simply wanted an answer to that question. can you give it?

Your question is invalid because you are putting God into time like we are (evidenced by your use of the words "has seen" and "already"). (and, btw, there are such things as invalid questions - i.e., questions to which a wholly truthful answer cannot be given. For example - if someone asks me "are you Irish? Please answer yes or no." Well, I CAN'T answer just yes or no. If I answer yes, then they can say "well, you don't have any English blood in you then." But I AM part English! If I answer no to the question, that would not be wholly truthful either - I am part Irish. I would say to them "That is not a question to which I can answer "yes" or "no". Please reword your question to something like "Do you have any Irish blood in you?", then I can give a valid yes/no answer.) So I would say the question you are asking is not properly a yes/no question. I would answer your question not with a "yes" or "no", but with "whatever path we choose with our free will, God knows it."

it is now 11/18/02. god decides to see what im gonna do on 10/02/05. he sees that i will get out of the bed on the right side. ok he now knows. now fast forward to 10/02/05. im getting out of bed, do i really have a choice to what side im gonna get out on? god has forseen that i will get out on the right side, so is that what i will do, or can i get out on the left side?

Same answer as that given above. It is YOUR choice, but God, in his omniscience, knows what it will be. Another example (although you've probably heard it) is that God is like the author of a play. Inside the play, the characters are bounded by time and have free will, but as the author, God knows what they will choose. Although any analogy will break down eventually, and of course the author of the play wrote the play and knows how it turns out, but the part I want you to consider is how the characters WHILE IN THE PLAY have free choice.

about the parent/child thing. heres my take using the same logic:

i(the parent, god, eru, whatever) am watching my child(human, child of god) play on a playground. i observe my child being assaulted by another child. what do i do. do i let my child fend for themselves and not interfere? or do i intervene and try to stop it before it happens? what would you do rian? now change(i) with eru, god, whoever and change (child) with humans or firstborn or gods children. then tell me if you have the same answer to both.

Well, I don't see how this relates to the free will/omniscience being compatible. What are you getting at here? Are you asking if it's proper to allow an evil action to proceed if you have the power to stop it? Well, that's a subject for another post, because this one is getting too long! Let me know if that's what you want to address.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Cirdan
[B]I did read all the thread last night. I was up with a sick kid.

I'm sorry, I hope he's better. Were you able to read to him at all? It depends on the type of illness what we as parents can do to help out. Once my older son was up in the middle of the night with some pain, and I found that looking thru family pictures really got his mind off of it while the pain med. was going from stomach to blood stream. But sometimes it's just a matter of quietly being there with them. It's so hard to have a sick child I hope you both are better soon.

The question of causality and the creation event effects the excercise of free will. What part of the design of the creator is represented in the causal chain and how much is free will. Free will is a matter of degrees and few can make unfettered choices. My example from the Silmarillion regarding Earendil illustrates how the gods did intervene to achieve the desired result.

Darn, now I can't find the letter where JRRT talks about this. Yes, I agree it's a matter of degree, and sometimes the Valar, and sometimes Eru Himself intervened. But I would say that typically, men exercised their free will.

If there is omniscience then there is benign evil in the creation of Melkor.

We probably mean the same thing here; I would say, though, that there is the possibility of evil choices being made by Melkor or any other created being, but not a certainty. Did you perhaps mean "latent" instead of "benign"? (hard to choose words when your eyes are crossing with tiredness, isn't it! And the kids always seem fine the next day! )

Melkor has no knowledge of punishment or consequence to his rebellious behavior because there is nothing stating this explicitly and he is not omniscient.

Do you mean that Melkor didn't know that he was doing anything wrong?

[Rían]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
Talking about Eru is almost always going to carry over into talking about God. Not because he resembles or portrays god (in the manner of narnia's Emporer Over Seas) he literally is God, because middle earth is our world. ..... As such, you can apply one to the other, without being allegorical

Absolutely.

Re Eru being God,

from JRR Tolkien's letter #156:
There is only one 'god': God, Eru Ilúvatar.

Re ME being our world,

from JRR Tolkien's letter #211:
I have, I suppose, constructed an imaginary time, but kept my feet on my own mother-earth for place.

There are many other refs, but these are just the first two I found on the subject.

[MasterMothra]

i cant break it down any simpler than that. if some one asks me if im irish i say yes........but im also scandinavian. but in the end i am truthfull in saying im irish.

what i meant by my child post is that your child post has as much relevance to the topic as mine did.

im not putting god into any form, he is all powerful isnt he? he can forsee the future, and if we cannot change what is forseen then we have no "real" free will, just an illusion of it. all this is according to the christian belief that god is all powerful. the two cannot exist in the same dimension at the same time. that is why i dont believe that god exists, because, we have free will.

same applies to tolkien in my opinion.

[Wayfarer]

what i meant by my child post is that your child post has as much relevance to the topic as mine did.

Saying that doesn't exactly help your case, neighbor.

he can forsee the future, and if we cannot change what is forseen then we have no "real" free will, just an illusion of it. all this is according to the christian belief that god is all powerful. the two cannot exist in the same dimension at the same time. that is why i dont believe that god exists, because, we have free will.

We can know what choices were made in the past. The fact that we know what choices were made does not change the fact that we had free will in the choosing.

God can know what choices are made in the future. The fact that he knows what choices will be made does not change the fact that we will have free will in the choosing.

Your torturous logic doesn't stand. Even so, I forsee that you're going to keep repeating the same unsupported premise. ]: ) Now you have no choice in the matter! Hah!

i dont believe that god exists, because, we have free will.

Let's consider the argument for a moment:

If god exists, and he knows the future, then there is no such thing as free will.
We have free will.
So, God does not exist.

Do you realize you base your conclusion on two unsupported premises?
First, as has been pointed out, there is no reason to think that foresight and free will are incompatable.
Second, you have no evidence that you do, in fact, have free will. After all, by your own logic melkor's rebellion against illuvatar was really illuvatar's plan,a nd even though he must have thought he had free will he really didn't. What stops you from applying the same logic to yourself?

No, your argument doesn't hold water. In part, because you make the not-uncommon mistake of pretending your ideas about this God whom you profess not to believe in have more weight than those who do profess to believe in him. Free will has never been a problem for me.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by MasterMothra
im not putting god into any form, he is all powerful isnt he? he can forsee the future, and if we cannot change what is forseen then we have no "real" free will, just an illusion of it. all this is according to the christian belief that god is all powerful. the two cannot exist in the same dimension at the same time. that is why i dont believe that god exists, because, we have free will.

God is all powerful, but you're making a contradiction in your statement. You say that he is all powerful, but that he still has to "forsee." Therefore, like RÃ*an pointed out, you're putting him in a box. It says in Psalms 90:4 of the Bible: "For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night."

Ilúvatar is the same. Both are the absolute creator. They created time, they don't abide by it. They never have to forsee. Before the beginning of the world (Either world ), God knew all of its history. It was a map laid out before him, and he gave people the free will to do as they chose. If it was forced to walk in his tune, sin would not exist and everyone would live in happiness. But no, he didn't force us. He had enough respect for his creations to create free will for them, so that they were themselves. With that came the possibility of evil, which he likewise knew would gain strength. He knew all and is all powerful, yet he permits us to make our own decisions. In Arda, people had the ability to do the right thing, and they had the ability not to. In Earth, people also can discern right from wrong (usually ), but here we get into Christian beliefs, such as original sin, Christ's coming to save the world, etc. So I won't get into that here and now.

What did you think of the example I already offered, MasterMothra? What don't you understand about our explanations?

If one human knows what another human is going to do, that doesn't mean they're manipulating, they're simply knowing. Why should it be different for God?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
Second, you have no evidence that you do, in fact, have free will. After all, by your own logic melkor's rebellion against illuvatar was really illuvatar's plan,a nd even though he must have thought he had free will he really didn't. What stops you from applying the same logic to yourself?

Actually, you aren't right on that one. There is evidence that there is free will, unless you're attacking the nature of God/Ilúvatar. The simple fact that sin exists shows that everything is not done by God and by his will. Only if you strike at his character and say that he's a hypocrite (For calling the devil the father of lies, or for punishing Morgoth for evil when he actually purposely made them so and commanded their movements), a liar (For calling himself good in nature), and a being that can dabble his fingers in both good and evil (As is evidenced by all history).

Originally posted by Wayfarer
In part, because you make the not-uncommon mistake of pretending your ideas about this God whom you profess not to believe in have more weight than those who do profess to believe in him.

I have not seen MasterMothra act in this biased manner. As appears to me, he is willing to discuss this and is stating an apparent contradiction that many people think is a contradiction. If he doesn't understand our examples or arguments, that is another matter from simply saying I'm right, which is not something he's said. As a matter of a fact, I've heard him say several times that this is "just my opinion."

[Rían]

(Lief, did you mean MasterMothra in your last paragraph?)

Well, MM, looks like you and I are at an impasse Oh well - I won't bother to repeat again what I've already said several times over. To me, free will and God's omniscience are perfectly logical and compatible. Apparently they aren't to you. C'est la vie! I hope you see the error in your logic soon!

[MasterMothra]

"Your torturous logic doesn't stand. Even so, I forsee that you're going to keep repeating the same unsupported premise. ]: ) Now you have no choice in the matter! Hah"

well, i dont know what to say, umm....................thank you?

what i appreciate about wayfarer is his willingness to respect others opinions, especially when they are not the same as his own. it is your gift in life i suppose. how old are you by the way?

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
[B]In fact, your entire line of argument restson a faulty assumption: That forknowledge and free will are mutually exclusive. There is really no reason to think that is the case.
[b]

If the creator instigates the chain of events with prior knowledge as to every step then there is no choice, it is fatalism. If the creator creates without knowing the entire chain of events then free will exists. Many paths might lead to the same final destination. Maybe that would be the creator's interest; to see [i]how[i] it plays out.

You seem to believe that forknowledge causes the events which it predicts, in which case it negates free will. However, it is far mor satisfactory to say that the events cause the forknowledge, in which case the two are compatable

Only by removing the creator as the original cause of creation. When I get water by combining hydrogen and oxygen it is not my foreknowledge of the outcome that causes it. I do know how and why it occurs, though.

Let me get this straight. Eru creats melkor as part of his design. Melkor rebels against erus design. So therefore Melkor's rebellion against Eru's design is part of eru's design? Does that make sense?

It specifically states in the book that this is the case. Melkor can make no music that Iluvatar does not intend. The gift of free will must mean an acknowledgement that evil will be possible.

I agree. Melkor was created with the ability to rebel. But it does not follow that because he was made with the ability to rebel, that he was intended to rebel all along. If melkor was created with the intention that he rebel, how does THAT allow for free will?

All the Ainur had specific roles and orientations in Middle Earth. Is it not possible that Melkor's role is the rebellious one. Maybe the free will is the degree to which he rebels. Without the external corrupting influence I see that he must originate the evil. Why did he rebel while the others did not? Melkor, the bad boy of ME.

Someone working to make something happen does not negate free will.

Unless they are omnipotent.

In you example, Ulmo works to make one thing happen. Tuor works to make another thing happen. But it is Turgon who, in the excercise of free will, chooses what to do.

The question is whether by not attacking Melkor when he was weaker did Turgon act to fullfill the destiny of Earendil? That requires a bit of speculation as to whether Earendil would have left Gondolin and sought Arda had Gondolin not fallen and Melkor had been defeated.

It is both yes and no. Melkor did strip his minions of free will, but did Manwe or Ulmo? I don't believe you can show any evidence of them forcing thier will on anybody. In fact, you can look at examples like feanor, where it arguably would have been better for them to force him to do something different.

I'm actually more on the side of frere will and a bit less omniscience as it is more workable. That some Ainur pushed they fates in some active way does not eliminate free will, but it certainly does weight the choice heavily. Deity pressure is even worse than peer pressure. The real question that is begged is why doesn't Ulmo go directly to Turgon. Is it because the only real goal is to fullfill the destiny of Earendil? I only wonder because the Ainur could have cast down Melkor themselves if that was thier goal.

Sleep well, my bearded freind. You're not going to get any rest on this issue. ]: )

Thanks buddy! I will decide whether to contend that the future is only accessable within that time-space and that the present is only predestined to those that have come back in time. Going forward beyond the present requires the game to be over and that the creator is merely a "monday morning quarterback." I would hope that is not the case. I prefer Rian's child analogy, as far as analogies go, in that knowing the circumstance and the players, and being very wise, it is likely that the outcome can be understood before it happens, as opposed to having happened and only now being relived somehow.

until tomorrow them

[Nibs]

Hey, I learned something cool in church Sunday (how often does that happen? Soooo kidding)...

Obviously, if God is omniscient as well as omnipotent, he must know what we will do as beings on the Earth. So, why bother at all?

Our teachers' explanation: Basically, we believe we chose to come here and live our lives as God would have us (i.e.; the ten commandments). He knows where we will end up after death and all, but we need to prove it to ourselves. How lame would it be if He just sorted us and told us where we belong without any kind of test? Obviously, we would have to accept it, He being omnipotent and all, but He is just. Assigning our destiny without any measure would be not-so-just.

It is better to watch a movie yourself than to just be informed of the ending, isn't it?

[Lief Erikson]

Cirdan, what I really don't get is how you can simply restate the same opinions as you gave before, ignoring all of the examples and explanations that we've given on these subjects. We have shown in numerous examples from real life and the Tolkien books that free will can coexist with foreknowledge. You haven't given any reason why it can't, you've simply said it can't.

But rather than restating my examples and the reasons for them again, I will simply go on to the two parts of your posts that we haven't already responded to as thoroughly.

It specifically states in the book that this is the case. Melkor can make no music that Iluvatar does not intend. The gift of free will must mean an acknowledgement that evil will be possible.

I think I know which part of the book you're talking about. I've seen that section quoted many times as an argument by MasterMothra, and one or two others. What it says, if we're talking about the same passage, is that Melkor cannot make any tune that Ilúvatar will not turn to good.

Without the external corrupting influence I see that he must originate the evil. Why did he rebel while the others did not? Melkor, the bad boy of ME.

Yes, Morgoth was the bad boy of ME . Why did he rebel while the others didn't? There are possible explanations for this, but I'll mention my favorite possibility, because it is the same as my opinion as to why Satan fell from grace.

When he was created, he was created with a free will. This made him capable of evil, right from the start. However, as he was created by God, his nature was originally good. He was created powerful, very powerful, and this was one of the factors that led to his undoing. Morgoth knew that he was greater than the other Valar, and this led to pride. Yet he couldn't create by himself, he could only alter, and he was second only to Ilúvatar. He became envious of Ilúvatar. Pride and envy certainly aren't the greatest sins, but they were the first ones that led to others. He grew to want to strike out on his own and gain more power for himself. Ilúvatar stood in his way to complete dominancy, and he was arrogant enough to think he was up to the match, so he rebelled. Other Maiar obviously also thought that he had a good chance of success, otherwise they wouldn't have joined in his revolt.

This is what I think happened, and I think that pride and envy were also Satan's downfall, for he also was created originally good.



As for whether or not Morgoth was purposely created evil . . . if you accept that point of view, then you're calling Ilúvatar a liar, a hypocrite, and a tyrant. He strikes out many times against evil, to protect and uphold the righteous. If he purposely is dabbling in it himself, by causing it or creating it, then he is a hypocrite. He also is a tyrant to the good peoples that he claims to uphold, for bringing upon them evil. He also is a liar for pretending to be good.

I think that there are strong enough evidences against this point of view in the books to disqualify the idea that Ilúvatar created Melkor evil.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
(Lief, did you mean MasterMothra in your last paragraph?)

Yes I did. Thanks for noticing that; I've edited it now .

[Rían]

And here comes RÃ*an with ... you guessed it! ... ANOTHER quote from The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien (and if you hang around on Entmoot long enough, you won't need to buy the book, because I'll have quoted the whole thing!

From JRRT's letter #153
To conclude: having mentioned Free Will, I might say that in my myth I have used 'subcreation' in a special way ... to make visible and physical the effects of Sin or misused Free Will by men. Free will is derivative, and is therefore only operative within provided circumstances; but in order that it may exist, it is necessary that the Author should guarantee it, whatever betides: sc. when it is 'against His Will', as we say, at any rate as it appears on a finite view. He does not stop or make 'unreal' sinful acts and their consequences.