what about the vala?

[jammi567]

Wow! *stares blanky at post* ummmmm, can someone summerize those two posts in to easy to read chunks of text

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Alcuin

Eru did not make Melkor to do all these evil things that he did. By that I mean Eru did not make Melkor with the intent or the purpose of committing evil, nor did Eru cause Melkor to commit evil: Melkor was inventive in his own right, inventiveness being a great gift of Eru to him, and he abused that gift by concocting schemes and plans and actions that he knew were hurtful to Eru who made him and loved him. Is this crazy? Yes, it is. Do we, each and every one of use, see it every day at home in dealings between parents and children, at work between coworkers and between managers and employees, at church among clergy and at church between clergy and laity, in social settings of every kind between one faction and another? Does that make it right? No! The nature of evil is to make enemies of those who should be friends, to deal out early death, to maim bodies and break hearts and rot souls. It is a disease, not one created by the Creator, but invented in all its rotten, dark-hearted, vile and hateful forms by those who have rebelled and continue to rebel against their Creator. Did Eru know what would happen? Yes, he did. Should he deprive the good of what they might have so that the evil might be avoided? Or should he deprive the evil of all possibility of action before anything has taken place? Are any of us perfectly good? So could any of us be alive if every evil action is blocked or its actor unmade?

I understand this interpretation, and agree that it is probably pretty close to how Tolkien eventually envisioned his universe, though its earlier incarnations were a bit more norse-like, the valar being more willful and independant entities that the christian-esk angels they latter became.

However, my problem with this mentality is the lack of guidance on Eru's part. In Melkor he created a being most like himself with all the freedoms, powers, curiousities, etc.; yet he did not seem to take much role in guiding his child other than a purely authoritarian one. This works fine with a lesser being like Manwe, but when you create a near equal, you must treat him as such.

It's like the difference between telling your child what to do and what not to do "because you said so" or actually clueing him or her in on the realities of life, the big plan, and letting them find their way to the proper choices on their own.

Melkor wanted to be an active part in his father's creation, and he was disappointed when his own creations were frowned upon. Thus, it became an antagonistic relationship. Basically, Eru did not allow Melkor to use his gifts to their fullest with him, so Melkor ended up using them against him.

[Wayfarer]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Melkor wanted to be an active part in his father's creation, and he was disappointed when his own creations were frowned upon. Thus, it became an antagonistic relationship. Basically, Eru did not allow Melkor to use his gifts to their fullest with him, so Melkor ended up using them against him.

This presumes that the part which Eru set out for Melkor to play, and which Melkor rejected, did not use Melkor's abilities to the fullest and best they could be.

I reject that presumption out of hand. In fact, I would assert quite the contrary, the Eru, as creator, knew the precise measure of of his creation and set out a path which would have used those abilities to the utmost. An unfallen Melkor would be greater, by far, than the weak and twisted pitiable thing which he would become.

The lesson is this: not that Melkor lacked guidance, but that he possessed it in abundance. Eru laid out a divine plan which was best, which was perfect, if only he would have followed it. Melkor still fell; undeniably, inexcusably, unrepentantly, as a result of his own choice and nothing else.

That is the long and short of it, the essential nature of the tragedy, that Melkor might have chosen differently but he did not, that he could have repented and been redeemed but he was not, and that all things may have been otherwise, if not for a single creation who made a choice.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

This presumes that the part which Eru set out for Melkor to play, and which Melkor rejected, did not use Melkor's abilities to the fullest and best they could be.

I reject that presumption out of hand. In fact, I would assert quite the contrary, the Eru, as creator, knew the precise measure of of his creation and set out a path which would have used those abilities to the utmost. An unfallen Melkor would be greater, by far, than the weak and twisted pitiable thing which he would become.

The lesson is this: not that Melkor lacked guidance, but that he possessed it in abundance. Eru laid out a divine plan which was best, which was perfect, if only he would have followed it. Melkor still fell; undeniably, inexcusably, unrepentantly, as a result of his own choice and nothing else.

That is the long and short of it, the essential nature of the tragedy, that Melkor might have chosen differently but he did not, that he could have repented and been redeemed but he was not, and that all things may have been otherwise, if not for a single creation who made a choice.

Where in Ainulindale does Eru layout a part for anyone to play before the music? In fact, it even says that it seemed to Melkor before the music that Eru took no thought for the void. So obviously nothing was discussed before hand.

And afterwords Eru says:

Then Iluvatar spoke, and he said: ‘Mighty are the Ainur,
and mightiest among them is Melkor; but that he may know,
and all the Ainur, that I am Iluvatar, those things that ye
have sung, I will show them forth, that ye may see what ye
have done. And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may
be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can
any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth
this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things
more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined.’

and later:

And when the Ainur had gazed for a while and were
silent, Iluvatar said again: ‘Behold your Music! This is your
minstrelsy; and each of you shall find contained herein, amid
the design that I set before you, all those things which it may
seem that he himself devised or added. And thou, Melkor,
wilt discover all the secret thoughts of thy mind, and wilt
perceive that they are but a part of the whole and tributary
to its glory.’

I don't think a "perfect" world was ever Eru's goal at all.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Melkor wanted to be an active part in his father's creation, and he was disappointed when his own creations were frowned upon. Thus, it became an antagonistic relationship. Basically, Eru did not allow Melkor to use his gifts to their fullest with him, so Melkor ended up using them against him.

But compare this with Aulë and his creation (the Dwarves), and how the relationship with Eru was not destroyed. I just don't buy the totally innocent Melkor idea, esp. given his later actions.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

But compare this with Aulë and his creation (the Dwarves), and how the relationship with Eru was not destroyed. I just don't buy the totally innocent Melkor idea, esp. given his later actions.

I'm not saying he was totally innocent, just that Melkor, exactly as he turned out, was part of the plan.

[Wayfarer]

But if it was all part of the plan, then Melkor did not have a choice in the matter - he was created to rebel, and thus relieved of any moral responsibility. That is clearly not the case in Tolkien's paradigm.

The very nature of free will necessitates the possibility that Melkor, if created, might rebel and turn to evil, and that, when offered a chance at salvation, he might reject it and continue to rebel. It isn't the case that he must rebel - the idea of evil cannot exist without free will, and free will cannot exist without choice.

This is why you see Manwe and the others releasing Morgoth after the agreed-upon amount of time. Because he could have sincerely repented and returned to his rightful place - he did not, but that was his choice to make, and it was not their place to take it from him.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I don't think a "perfect" world was ever Eru's goal at all.

Any time you allow free will into the equation, you allow for the possibility of a non-perfect world, so I guess I'd say it was a desire-goal but not a goal that Eru thought would happen. But I imagine he thought the good was worth the price of the potential grief, esp. since he could step in to help whenever he wanted. I think love is a more important goal than comfort.

[Valtir]

I like to think that the world is perfect as it is, warts and all.

To think otherwise is to accuse Eru, or, The One, of imperfection, which does not seem possible within the scheme of things.

[jammi567]

Originally Posted by Valtir

I like to think that the world is perfect as it is, warts and all.

To think otherwise is to accuse Eru, or, The One, of imperfection, which does not seem possible within the scheme of things.

why can't Eru be a little inperfect? i think that if he was inperfect, that the story would be more realistic. And it would help to explain why none of his creatures (valar, maiar etc) are perfect, if they came from a inperfect mind.

[Valtir]

Originally Posted by jammi567

why can't Eru be a little inperfect? i think that if he was inperfect, that the story would be more realistic. And it would help to explain why none of his creatures (valar, maiar etc) are perfect, if they came from a inperfect mind.

I don't think it's possible for Eru to be imperfect. He's The One -- all. How can "all" be imperfect, since to state something is imperfect means you can compare it to something that is more... perfect?

Semantical arguement, perhaps, but if there is only One, than that is perfection, since there is no other.

[jammi567]

What i meant was: how can anyone be absalotly perfect? i mean, that's impossible.

[Valtir]

Originally Posted by jammi567

What i meant was: how can anyone be absalotly perfect? i mean, that's impossible.

How is it impossible to the entity who created everything?

[jammi567]

i couldn't care less whether he created everything, he's still imperfect in his own way.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

But if it was all part of the plan, then Melkor did not have a choice in the matter - he was created to rebel, and thus relieved of any moral responsibility.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

That is clearly not the case in Tolkien's paradigm.

No matter what Tolkien's intention was, it is very hard to read it any other way. Unless you assume that Eru was so clueless that it didn't even cross his mind that Melkor would rebel, rebel so strongly, and continue to rebel and cause rebellion long after his removal from Arda.

Other writings have even pointed to Dagor Dagorath being foretold by Mandos, who must have remembered it from the music. If Eru didn't know Melkor's ultimate fate, why include a last battle in the music?

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

The very nature of free will necessitates the possibility that Melkor, if created, might rebel and turn to evil, and that, when offered a chance at salvation, he might reject it and continue to rebel. It isn't the case that he must rebel - the idea of evil cannot exist without free will, and free will cannot exist without choice.

This is the accepted idea behind good and evil, but when you throw an omnipotent creator into the mix and add in prophecy, it simply doesn't pan out. There is no "might" from the creator's point of view.

At best, the creator knows his creation will turn evil and lets it happen; there is free will, but the creator knows how that free will will be exercised and the creator chooses to let it exist in his creation.

At worst, the creator actually intends to have evil as part of the picture; there is no true free will, only the perception of it because no one but the creator sees the big picture.