Opinions: Fëanor, ritcheous or over-proud?

[Fat middle]

I haven't been following this thread much, so perhaps i'm repeting something already said. I agree that Mandos would never release Feanor till the end of time; but he will release him at the end of all things.

I think that almost all of the prophecy of Mandos has to be considered rejected by Tolkien. What he never rejected AFAIK is the vague idea that there would be a new life also for elves after Arda had dissapeared. In that life all elves -those who never had died, those who had been released by Mandos and those who never had been released by Mandos- would live again, but surely in a new way because their hroa couldn't be the same after Arda had passed.

But not until the End, when Feanor shall return who perished when the Sun was young and sitteth now in the Halls of Awaiting and comes no more amongst his kin; not until Sun passeth and the Moon falls shall it be known of what substance they were made.

This is all i have found to support the idea that Feanor would return to life. It is from the Annals of Aman, so it's nearer to Tolkien's "last conception" than the prophecy of Quenta Noldorinwa.

[Falagar]

This is all i have found to support the idea that Feanor would return to life. It is from the Annals of Aman, so it's nearer to Tolkien's "last conception" than the prophecy of Quenta Noldorinwa.

But merely the idea that Fëanor would repent, which the Prophecy gives, is interesting. It tells us that at least at one time Tolkien had this thought.

I was going to write that I was going to quote one of MM's articles, but that it was down. When I clicked the link, it wasn't. So here it is:

A funny thing happened on the way to the canon

(...)The Law of Mandos stipulates that, whenever Turin or Morgoth become the focus of discussion, someone will inevitably drag in the "Second Prophecy of Mandos". This little gem has no relevance to The Lord of the Rings, but is frequently cited as proof that Morgoth will return at the end of Time, and that Turin will slay him. The inconvenient fact that Tolkien abandoned the prophecy in the 1930s, and ultimately only considered restoring it in a substantially different form (due to Andreth, an Edainic woman of Beleriand, whose prophecy foretells of Turin's temporary return at the end of the First Age), is either unknown to the faithful or disputed in some fashion.

Of course, Turin and Morgoth have little relevance to The Lord of the Rings, as they are barely mentioned in it. But the Second Prophecy is not mentioned or referred to in any way in The Silmarillion. It's not even pointed to in The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, but there are pious souls who reverently insist it is a vital part of the canon. Woe unto he who points out that the Turin of The Silmarillion cannot become a Vala, even at the end of Time. And never mind the fact that all references to a Last Battle are obscure and incomplete, making no mention of Turin.

I don't have The Shaping of Middle Earth, so I can't really comment on the validness of the Prophecy...

[Attalus]

Interesting quote, Falagar. I would really hope that Feanor would have one final chance to repent of the evil that he caused and the good he could have done. Surely, he and Mandos had some interesting talks through the ages.

[Maedhros]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
ps - Maedhros, I love that quote from Ósanwe-kenta:

Thanks RÃ*an. It's good to see that they are still nice people in this forum. Unlike others you resort to flaming you when their arguments are fated to crumble.

Originally posted by Attalus
So, Hate is indeed the appropriate response to Evil.

I would like to see proof of this statement. I don't take your word as fact.

Originally posted by Attalus
Actually, we are hating a purely literary creation in a literary way.

Then all the more reason to use pity then.
For a more detailed discussion about the Second Prophecy of Mandos look here:

Túrin and the Second Prophecy of Mandos

[Attalus]

As I have said, the Bible says that "God loves the sinner and hates the sin." Sin is by definition evil, from God's point of view. Q.E.D.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Maedhros
Thanks RÃ*an. It's good to see that they are still nice people in this forum. Unlike others you resort to flaming you when their arguments are fated to crumble.

You're welcome

I think there's lots of nice, well-informed people on this forum. There's also differing opinions, and it's fun and interesting to discuss them, as long as there's no flaming, as you say. I have no problem disagreeing with people, as long as it remains friendly.

I also think there's just no "right" answer to some of these topics - sometimes Tolkien is vague about things, or even changes his mind about things (one of the best examples - Galadriel and Celeborn).

I think informed conjecture is also fun and interesting to share, and of course, conjecture can't be "proven". We all need to be able to disagree considerately, and we usually can. Let's remember the main thing we all share - a love of Tolkien's works.

[/"bliss ninny" mode ]

ps - that quote that you shared reminds me of the bit in the Sil where it says that even tho Tulkas disagreed with letting Melkor go, he obeyed the decision - something like "for those who would uphold authority against rebellion cannot themselves rebel". IOW, you can't fight wrong with wrong.

[Maedhros]

Originally posted by Attalus
As I have said, the Bible says that "God loves the sinner and hates the sin." Sin is by definition evil, from God's point of view. Q.E.D.

You are going to have to be more specific than that.

[Attalus]

Ooh-kay, how about Psalm 5, verses 4-6: "For thou art not a God that has pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee. The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity, Thou shall destroy those that speak leasing ( falsehood -R.V.), the Lord will abhor the bloody and deceitful man."

[Maedhros]

How about this then:
From Luke 6:27

"But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you

.

Is the christian belief is to hate the hater?

[Falagar]

And as far as I know, God is also a forgiveful God, he forgives the sinner...

My knowledge on Christianity doesn't extend into such deep matters, as you may have noticed.

[Attalus]

The Luke passage has to do with the Christian's conduct. God is not addressed in it, and he is expressly shown to hate people who do evil. Sin, in fact. Of course, God forgives the sinner. The repentent sinner. And, as I have said before, I am enjoined to good to those that hate me. As far as I know, Feanor does not hate me, or any other real person, and is not my enemy, or any other real person. He is a literary character, and Christians are free to hate him or love him, and his evil acts.

[Rían]

Christianity, as opposed to Judaism, is based on the "new covenant" of faith, not the "old covenant" of the law (verses supplied upon request ), to the best of my understanding (almost 30 years of being a Christian). So if you're talking about Christianity, I think the New Testament verses are more appropriate.

I think the main theme of the Old Testament was showing that God is righteous and holy, and rightly abhors any sinful behavior (just as we, made in His image, rightly abhor evil acts). The New T builds upon the Old T - if we don't know we're sinful (as shown in the Old T), which separates us from a holy God, then we don't realize we need salvation (as provided by Jesus in the New T), which reconciles us to God.

And God provides forgiveness, if we ask for it and accept the way He has provided - some people don't want to ask...

But this might be gettng too OT...

[Attalus]

The New Testament's verses are indeed more appropriate to me, and indeed the Psalm does not address the individual, only God. I, as a Christian, am not allowed to hate the Nazis, say, but I am free to deplore their evil conduct, and to prevent it if I can. Again, the whole confusion is between a literary character and the real thing. I may also point out that the Psalm is more appropriate, since the First Age was before the birth of Christ.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Attalus
I, as a Christian, am not allowed to hate the Nazis, say, but I am free to deplore their evil conduct, and to prevent it if I can.

I totally agree with you there.

I may also point out that the Psalm is more appropriate, since the First Age was before the birth of Christ.

LOL! Great point, Attalus! And I'll just add Hebrews 13:8 - "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, yes and forever." and Malachi 3:6a - "For I, the Lord, do not change;"

Have you had a chance to read the bits in Morgoth's Ring, Attalus, about the fall of man? Very interesting.

[Falagar]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
[B]I totally agree with you there.


LOL! Great point, Attalus! And I'll just add Hebrews 13:8 - "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, yes and forever." and Malachi 3:6a - "For I, the Lord, do not change;"

Have you had a chance to read the bits in Morgoth's Ring, Attalus, about the fall of man? Very interesting.

I don't know if Attalus have, but I have at least. A very interesting essay, which is the only I have ever read that actually describes what happend when Men fell under the shadow.

[Rían]

Yes, the quiet "First Voice" and the devious "Second Voice" are very interesting.

*wonders how long Attalus can hold out buying Morgoth's Ring, if he doesn't already have it *

[Maedhros]

Originally posted by Attalus
The Luke passage has to do with the Christian's conduct. God is not addressed in it, and he is expressly shown to hate people who do evil. Sin, in fact. Of course, God forgives the sinner. The repentent sinner. And, as I have said before, I am enjoined to good to those that hate me. As far as I know, Feanor does not hate me, or any other real person, and is not my enemy, or any other real person. He is a literary character, and Christians are free to hate him or love him, and his evil acts.

Certainly a christian, that being one who tries and follows the teachings, should try and overcome their hate and be the better person. Every one is free to do whatever they want. But in Tolkien's mythos and in The New Testament, the idea that hate should be met with hate is discarded as a no no.

[Attalus]

Again, only as far as living beings are concerned. Then your attitude might cause you to commits acts contrary to charity, or, God forbid, violence. But, nowhere is it stated that one is forbidden to abhor or hate evil actions, or literary characters. This, I believe, would have quite the reverse effect. And, again, hating Feanor is not returning hate with hate, since he can only hate withing the confines of a story.

[Attalus]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Yes, the quiet "First Voice" and the devious "Second Voice" are very interesting.

*wonders how long Attalus can hold out buying Morgoth's Ring, if he doesn't already have it *

Oh, I have it, and all of the HoME, but I regard them with some suspicion, and agree with Michael Martinez that they are not Canon, merely a collection of speculations that JRRT may or may not have come to believe. Falagar, I think you posted something to this point, or I might be mistaken.

[Rían]

But they're enjoyable and interesting speculations, IMHO and at the very least, show some of this thoughts on things. And some are very well-developed.

Ta, all, I'm off!