Evil in Middle-Earth

[Attalus]

That was because God answered Job by saying that the answer was in Himself, not in logic or right. Job says then, in effect, "Oh, well, if it's like that, okay!"

[inked]

Yes, it should be made clear that Elihu gave the answer that humans could reason out all the events from prior cause, and Elihu of course meant that the prevailing theory was "Job, you sinned and that's why you're being punished, Dude. Now, let's figure it out, man. I know this seems kinda rough, but, you know me! Buck up, now!"

Job refused the human understanding of evil as solely due to personal dessert!
He gets down with God and says, "Yo, YHWH, let's get it right between us. I am righteous. Read my lips! Why are you doing me this way?"

Job doesn't hesistate to take God to the mat and get real with his feelings. But in the end, when God takes Elihu et alia to task for their blaming Job, He merely indicates that humans cannot grasp the whole matter. He points to Job and says, "Be like him. Keep the faith, get mad, call me names, let it all out!" Thus he justifies Job before human accusers and acquits him righteous.
BUT to Job YHWH says "Check out all I've done. You know me. What is your response?" Job says "Despite all, I still trust you! (not that I don't think you could have done something else). My faith is in you!"

Job's response to evil is, IMHO, most like Gandalf's.

[Rían]

(BTW, Michael, I really enjoy your essays, and your site led me to Entmoot )

Attalus - IMO, it's a bit more than "Oh, well, if it's like that, okay!" Job actually retracted his complaints and questions, and repented in "dust and ashes". I think a more accurate summary of what Job said would be : "Whoa baby! You da Boss! You rock! Woo-hoo!"

I think Aulë is a bit like Job - both basically really good characters, then a slip (but not an entirely wholehearted one), then complete repentence and restoration with their Creator.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Attalus

Celegorm's dog deserted him, for crying out loud! A fellow has to be pretty bad for that to happen.

(BTW, this cracked me up! )

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Attalus

That was because God answered Job by saying that the answer was in Himself, not in logic or right.

But it's also important to realize that logic and right ARE IN God.


Another interesting thing about Job and Aulë - I think they both fell into an error that "good" people can fall into: I think they started trusting in their own goodness, apart from their Creator, instead of their goodness in relation to their Creator.

I think that altho Job was "righteous", he fell into error by thinking of God as one of the "household gods" that abounded in his time and place, and he started dealing with God the way one deals with household gods - with a vending-machine attitude. "Hey, local god, I throw a few babies on the fire, you bless me next time I go to war!" Babies in - ka-ching - blessings out. And for Job : righteous behavior in - ka-ching - blessings out. IOW - Job is in control. I think part of the way God dealt with Job was to get this lie out of his head - God Almighty does what is good and right, and no one stops Him, and He is NOT to be bought or bribed.

Aulë fell into a similar error, I think. He thought that he could bring about good apart from the boundaries that are a natural part of being a created being (as opposed to the Creator of all). And Ilúvatar dealt with him in the way we often see in the Bible - asking, basically, "what have you done?" It's not that Ilúvatar didn't KNOW! Asking that question means : "Here I am, the One that created you and everything else; the One that is all good and all love and all righteousness. You know you did wrong - what are you going to do with that?" And Aulë chose to repent, as did Job, when the truth was presented to them by their Creator.

(Not worded too well, but I just had a few minutes ... )

[Attalus]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

But it's also important to realize that logic and right ARE IN God.


(Not worded too well, but I just had a few minutes ... )

True. I should have said in human logic and right, by definition imperfect.

[Michael Martinez]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I think that altho Job was "righteous", he fell into error by thinking of God as one of the "household gods" that abounded in his time and place, and he started dealing with God the way one deals with household gods - with a vending-machine attitude. "Hey, local god, I throw a few babies on the fire, you bless me next time I go to war!" Babies in - ka-ching - blessings out. And for Job : righteous behavior in - ka-ching - blessings out. IOW - Job is in control. I think part of the way God dealt with Job was to get this lie out of his head - God Almighty does what is good and right, and no one stops Him, and He is NOT to be bought or bribed.

I don't think Job looked at God in that way at all. Why would God hold Job out to be a righteous man in the first place, if he was not living faithfully to begin with?

Job didn't understand why he was being tested, and he was understandably upset when his friends accused him of being responsible for his woes. He spoke out in anger against God, and that is what got him rebuked.

[Rían]

(sorry I couldn't respond sooner - we were camping at the beach this weekend )

Why do you think God did what He did to Job, and do you think it was fair and/or good?

[Attalus]

I think that the answer lies in God, as it was said. God has many ways of testing our hearts, and (seemingly) undeserved catastrophe seems unfortunately to be one of them. One of the most uncomfortable lines in Scripture is, to me, "From those who have much, much will be expected."

[Rían]

Yes, that line makes me very humble and uncomfy, too, since I'm very blessed. But the Bible is very right in one of its more profound lines - it's more blessed to give than to receive.

Michael, if you come back, I'd love to get your response to my question! And Attalus, what do you think was God's purpose/goal in testing Job's heart? (not that I'm an expert - I just like to discuss things and share ideas)

[Michael Martinez]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Michael, if you come back, I'd love to get your response to my question! And Attalus, what do you think was God's purpose/goal in testing Job's heart? (not that I'm an expert - I just like to discuss things and share ideas)

Well, you're asking a literalist to answer a speculative question. The Book of Job says God was testing Job to demonstrate the strength of Job's faith to Lucifer.

I don't have an opinion on the purpose of the book beyond the teaching that one's faith in God is more important than all the opinions in the world.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Michael Martinez

He spoke out in anger against God, and that is what got him rebuked.

Do you think it was the attitude (anger) that got him rebuked, or something Job said that got him rebuked? IOW, what was God's statement on this?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Michael Martinez

Well, you're asking a literalist to answer a speculative question. The Book of Job says God was testing Job to demonstrate the strength of Job's faith to Lucifer.

But there can be more than one purpose to what God did, and I think since God is omniscient, one can conclude (while still being a literalist) that whatever change happened in Job was also intended by God; don't you? If so, what change do you see that took place in Job?

(ps - I don't know you well and don't know if you like these types of discussions or not - feel free to say you're not interested! )

[Sister Golden Hair]

Are we still talking about "Evil in Middle-earth," or the bible?

[Rían]

Sorry, we got sidetracked by Job, a fascinating book!

(remember my title! but I'll head back to the thread topic now)

[Rían]

From the very first post - what makes a person evil in ME -

I don't think you can call a person "evil" in the sense that you can say "1 + 2 = 3". IOW, there's not some magic threshold that is crossed where everyone agrees that so-and-so is now evil, altho he wasn't yesterday at teatime. I think it's just kind of a "what is this person characterized by" type of judgement, and that even the "good" people in ME sometimes did evil things, and the "evil" people did good things. But the "evil" people were more characterized by doing evil things than good things, and the TREND of their choices was going more and more to evil.

There's an interesting analogy in CS Lewis' "The Great Divorce" where they talk about a person who is a complainer, and then they get to the point where they're no longer a person who complains, but they are simply a complaint; IOW, the person themselves has so abandoned themselves to that particular evil, by their free-will choosing it over and over again, that they have forfeited their very personhood and thus their free will. That's why little, daily choices are important. I think we see this in Saruman, who at the end is actually unable to choose anything but evil. He HAD free will in the beginning, and was a great person, but his daily, continual choices to serve self and evil actually took away his free will at the end. His loss of personhood was rightly mourned, and it came about by choosing evil continually.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Sorry, we got sidetracked by Job, a fascinating book!

(remember my title! but I'll head back to the thread topic now)

Yes, and let's not forget "Bliss Ninny."

[Rían]

Should I add "(and Bliss Ninny on the side)" to my title?

(ps - check out my post above yours - what do you think?)

[Sister Golden Hair]

I can add "bliss ninny" if you like.

I don't think you can call a person "evil" in the sense that you can say "1 + 2 = 3". IOW, there's not some magic threshold that is crossed where everyone agrees that so-and-so is now evil, altho he wasn't yesterday at teatime. I think it's just kind of a "what is this person characterized by" type of judgement, and that even the "good" people in ME sometimes did evil things, and the "evil" people did good things. But the "evil" people were more characterized by doing evil things than good things, and the TREND of their choices was going more and more to evil.

I think it's a matter of degrees of evil. You can't compare the balrog to an Orc, or Orcs to the Sacksville-Baggins'. With people, they have the potential to do both good and evil. It may be a choice, but it is what drives you to make that choice, don't you think?

[inked]

Evil in Middle Earth and everywhere else we know of in the Universe (Terra) is composed of two parts in its effects. There is the situation into which we are born consisting of the cumulative effects prior to us and in which we are enmeshed involuntarily, but to which we must respond. Then there are the purely personal components we face (which may partake of and contribute to the historic reality).

In the former case, one has to decide one's response as limited by the situation, eg, Frodo can choose to bear the Ring with some knowledge of the intercultural baggage of Elves, Dwarves, Men, and Hobbits responding to the historical reality he dwells in OR can refuse to do so. In the latter, Frodo can kill Gollum out of anger, despair, or frustration or not.

The complexity of the interactions makes disentangling them difficult for the reader and not least the protagonist! This is art imitating life. Where Tolkein becomes sublime is in his encompassing portrait to the inherent difficulties of worlds gone awry. All aspects of ME and humanity are affected: the Mind (Elves), the Will (Hobbits), and the Body (Dwarves) as relative personifications and unitively in Men (trinity-in-unity). It is fascinating to assess the problem in this standard literary fashion which Tolkein elevated to marvelous heights. Including the spiritual components, we see the problem exists on a hierarchal scale and our diminuitive (though NOT unimportant!) role. Where JRRT excels is in imaginatively enabling us to reflect on the origin and existence of evil and OUR response to it.

Including the Silmarillion, we see the progression and outworking of the infiltration and embrasure of evil by individuals and cultures, the consequences, and the possibilities of dealing with it in all aspects. And as all Art, it forces us to the confrontation "What shall be my role?"