Iluvatar made Melkor evil?

[Sister Golden Hair]

Yes Lief, do get the HoMe series. You won't regret it.

[MasterMothra]

rian, i have read your posts, finally! sorry it took so long. you have made quite an contribution to the discussion, as have all the other posters. then here comes me and my little posts, hehheeh. i have a different outlook on the "god" of the sil and the "god" in religion. both to me are nothing but characters in great fantasy epics. i do not connect eru with "god" at all, but think of him as the absentee god that he is. eru is to blame for the shortcomings of all his creations, but the blame is not totally his to bear. each race must make decisions that could be conceived as good or evil, and must take that token of responsibility for themselves.(this is what i gathered from rians posts, hope i am correct). now, what happens after these characters perish, is what im interested in.in the books of the bible god punishes his own creations severely for sins that he must take some responsibilty for; not at all a god that i would perceive as loving. as for the sil, it seems that eru may have been more tolerable of things that free will had brought about, good or bad, since he was the creating force behind the ainur. i'm sure someone here has more knowledge than i regarding that subject, so i will present the floor to them now.

[Lief Erikson]

Thanks for the advice, everyone. I'll try to eventually read the HoME.

MasterMothra, the only responsibility that God must take for the sins of the world is his granting them free will. He could have changed things so that evil never happened, so that Satan never turned to wickedness, so that humanity grew up in perfection, but he didn't. If he had, then we wouldn't have free will, but he gave us the ability to do evil if we wanted to. It was however, in the beginning, not our nature to do evil, just as it wasn't Satan's original nature to do evil. Pride and envy turned him to wickedness, while succumbing to temptation destroyed us.

Preventing us from doing evil would have been to destroy his gift to all of his creations, which is free will. Rather than forcing us onto his own path, he permitted us to go astray, but gave us the ability to come back to him. And since he is righteousness, and those that keep away from him keep away from righteousness and remain in sin, of course he is going to punish evil strongly! But he is just, and he knows the situation of all hearts. And he isn't going to punish the innocent.

As for Eru, I don't think he is responsible for all the wickedness of his creations except in the same way that God is. God created his creations with free will, so did Eru in Tolkien's work. They didn't create evil, but the evil came. Either could have forced all their creations onto the path of righteousness, but each had to much respect for their creations to treat them in such a way. That would have been a forceful and controlling God. It would have been a God who believed in that saying: "The end justifies the means."

[Tar-Palantir]

One difference between man's death in the Sil and man's death in Christianity is this:

In the Sil, death is the gift of Iluvatar to men.

In the Bible, death is the punishment for sin.

I don't see a universal fall into corruption in Tolkien's universe. I see corruptible creatures, but not corrupted creatures (unless you point out that orcs, trolls, and the like are totally corrupt, which is true). I don't think man is totally fallen in the Sil. Have you ever noticed how little crime there is in middle-earth?

[Rían]

Just a quick post - I probably can't get in a well-thought-out post for a day or two, just not enough free time -

I'm glad you're back, MM! I'll post a response to your post as soon as I can. I basically agree with Lief, and the important thing is, as he said, that God "gave us the ability to come back to Him", but I'll post a reponse in my own words soon to your comments.

Hi again, Tar-Palantir! Did you see my post on the diacritical marks? If so, could you get them to work? And re the death comment, I would recommend to you, too, to look at the Athrabeth section in Morgoth's Ring (check a few posts ago for this topic - the "fall" described there did indeed affect the entire race of mankind) - I really think that death was a "gift" to man in the sense that because of death, they were not forced to live eternally in their corrupted state, but as Christ overcame death, so can we thru Him. (if that makes sense! probably not worded too well, but must start dinner in a few minutes!!)

[Artanis]

Originally posted by Tar-Palantir
I don't see a universal fall into corruption in Tolkien's universe. I see corruptible creatures, but not corrupted creatures (unless you point out that orcs, trolls, and the like are totally corrupt, which is true). I don't think man is totally fallen in the Sil. Have you ever noticed how little crime there is in middle-earth?

I agree that the fall of Men in Tolkien's world was not a universal one. Those Men who came into Beleriand, the Edain, were the faithful ones, they fled from the dark forces that had overcome the Men that stayed behind. The Edain was restored somehow, I don't know the details of this, but I believe they were not punished.

RÃ*an, I agree about the gift of death to Men. Men were not created immortal, and fear and reluctance of death was not natural to them, but came as a result from the influence of Morgoth.

[Tar-Palantir]

Yes, RÃ*an, I got the characters to work. Thank-you so much. I sometimes need to post something in Spanish on another forum and previously I did not know how to put in the accent marks and tildes. Now I do! Do you know how to do an inverted exclamation point?

[Tar-Palantir]

MasterMothra writes, [in the books of the bible god punishes his own creations severely for sins that he must take some responsibilty for; not at all a god that i would perceive as loving.]

I hope that you will give me a fair hearing on this one Master M. (grin)

Here's my question for you:

What is it that obligates God to stop a free creature from doing wrong and rebelling against his commands? In other words, when a free creature commits an uncoerced act of evil, how is God responsible for that?

Forgive me for saying so, but you have assumed that God must take some responsibility for sin, without having established that fact.

I say that as long as God rights all wrongs in the end, his righteous character remains unimpeached.

But I am willing to listen.

[Lief Erikson]

I agree. Someone on the evolution thread in General Messages sent in the same question, and I was trying to tell him that hell is about justice. We don't know a whole lot about hell from the Bible, but we do know that God is just. God isn't required to force his creatures to accept his mercy, as you say.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Tar-Palantir
Yes, RÃ*an, I got the characters to work. Thank-you so much. I sometimes need to post something in Spanish on another forum and previously I did not know how to put in the accent marks and tildes. Now I do! Do you know how to do an inverted exclamation point?

No, I don't - sorry Maybe someone on the other forum can tell you that one.

[MasterMothra]

well, if there is a god, and in my humble opinion there is not, then his responsibility only exists in the fact that it was he who created and delived us into this world. adam and eve were doomed to fail in the instant that god made the garden of eden and allowed satan to coexist with the two. call it "free will" if you must, but i call it entrapment. adam and eve were innocent and ignorant in the beginning and did what any "child" would do when presented with satans offer. if i put a cookie jar in the kitchen, but tell my kids not to open it, it would be unreasonable to think they would not, since curiosity is something that is natural. now give the cookies in the jar the ability to "talk" to the children, and coerse them into thinking it was ok to eat of the jar. would you be surprised if the children disobeyed you? then you not only curse the children, but also all of their offspring forever. hmmmm, what a kind and loving god that is. all god had to do was not allow satan and the tree of knowledge to exist and all of this would have been avoided. its like leaving a loaded gun within the reaches of your beloved children and then blaming them for the repercussions. of couse i only think of the bible in the same context as the silmarillion; a good read that is entertaining at most. it is not my intention to dissuede anyones beliefs. these are solely my interpretations.

[Rían]

(see next post - had problems with editor on this one)

[Rían]

OK, MM, I've got some time to address your comments/questions. I usually edit the posts for awhile because I refer back to other posts - I'll post an "all done" message when my post is complete, ok?

Originally posted by MasterMothra
well, if there is a god, and in my humble opinion there is not, then his responsibility only exists in the fact that it was he who created and delived us into this world.

What do you think of my response of 10/24, 1:11 pm that addresses this? (pg 3, near the bottom)

adam and eve were doomed to fail in the instant that god made the garden of eden and allowed satan to coexist with the two. call it "free will" if you must, but i call it entrapment.

I disagree. Although I think that there was the possibility of their disobedience (which is really the proper term here), it was not an absolute given. The whole free will thing, with its possibility of choosing evil, or else free will would be meaningless, is discussed in several posts such as mine of 10/21, 4:50 pm, Lief's of 10/21, 10:35 pm, mine of 10-22, 9:31 am and Lief's of 10/22, 1:20 pm. What do you think of those posts?

adam and eve were innocent and ignorant in the beginning and did what any "child" would do when presented with satans offer. if i put a cookie jar in the kitchen, but tell my kids not to open it, it would be unreasonable to think they would not, since curiosity is something that is natural. now give the cookies in the jar the ability to "talk" to the children, and coerse them into thinking it was ok to eat of the jar. would you be surprised if the children disobeyed you? then you not only curse the children, but also all of their offspring forever. hmmmm, what a kind and loving god that is. all god had to do was not allow satan and the tree of knowledge to exist and all of this would have been avoided. its like leaving a loaded gun within the reaches of your beloved children and then blaming them for the repercussions.

Re innocent - do you mean that they did not know that it was wrong? Re ignorant - no, they were instructed by God to not take the fruit. Now if God did something like this - "ok, I'm gonna zap them if they eat this one fruit - I won't tell them, but I'll really zap them if they do!" - that would be another thing. In fact, that would be an impossible thing, given God's character.

One thing that you do not take into consideration is that before their fall, they did not have a sin nature - I believe that their natural tendency was to obey, in a right and proper creation-to-creator relationship, and it was a joyful thing. We can even see that here in this fallen world - a good child is pleased to obey the loving and reasonable request of loving parents, and the parents are pleased with his obedience. Now our instructions for our children are for their good. But paradise is already good, and so are Adam and Eve. How can they show their love to their creator? How about obedience to a simple request that does them absolutely no harm to obey?

So although curiosity may be natural, as you said, I believe that obedience was also natural. And that is why what seems to us, in this fallen world and with our sin natures, like a simple little error on their part is such a big thing - they have the entire WORLD, except fruit from one tree, and a close relationship with God, and they are free from sin nature.

One interesting thing that shows that they know that they are NOT innocent is their response when God asks them what happened (He knew, of course, but it is just like when I ask my child what happened, when I KNOW what happened, because I want to see how he will deal with it - whether he is honest or deceitful about it, etc). Anyway, when God asks them, they DO NOT SAY "Oh my goodness, I'm SO sorry, I really had NO idea that you did not want us to do that! Please forgive me!" No, Adam says it's not his fault (which implies that he knew it was wrong), it's Eve's fault, and Eve, a quick learner follows his example and says that it's Satan's fault.

OK - done editing!

[MasterMothra]

if you mean the reference to jesus' involvement, then i have to dissagree. i have yet to understand why "god" allowed his son to be murdered and what it had to do with "cleansing" our sins. if a parent in todays society allowed their children to be murdered, they would be sent to jail. they are interesting though.

adam and eve were innocent until they ate from the tree. i guess god did not want his children to have "knowledge". he wanted to keep them dumb, so they would not question the almighty. slave owners did the same thing to their slaves in the old south.

eru was a more loving and understanding god, than the one portrayed in the bible. he did not unjustly punish his children for their mistakes. i dont remember tolkien saying that feanor went to hell for what he did, or sauron for that matter. they were all his creatures and he loved them.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by MasterMothra
adam and eve were innocent until they ate from the tree. i guess god did not want his children to have "knowledge". he wanted to keep them dumb, so they would not question the almighty. slave owners did the same thing to their slaves in the old south.

Keeping them dumb so that they won't question the Almighty . . . That doesn't sound like the God I know. He is constantly seeking to help people to come into more truth, not to hide it from them and keep them dumb. Humans are blinded by ignorance and held in the chains of sin. Christ unlocks the chains and unveils the eyes of a person. When this happens, then they can really start to see in a way they never had been able to before, and truth of the spiritual realm is revealed. Then the walk with God begins, in which he leads them into greater truth, holiness and faith.

The tree contained the knowledge of good and evil. They still were unacquainted with evil, and that was as God intended it to be. His creations were originally pure, and were intended to remain in this purity. They fell, however, by their own action, and by succumbing to temptation. The devil lead them into knowledge of evil to bind humanity in ignorance of God.

Originally posted by MasterMothra
if you mean the reference to jesus' involvement, then i have to dissagree. i have yet to understand why "god" allowed his son to be murdered and what it had to do with "cleansing" our sins. if a parent in todays society allowed their children to be murdered, they would be sent to jail. they are interesting though.

One important thing to note is the Jesus is one of the Trinity. He was one with God, just as the Holy Spirit is, except possibly (And this can be debated) more so. He claimed in the New Testament that he only says what he hears from the Father, therefore his words are the words of God. God loved the world and the people in it in an unfathomable and deep love, and it was because of this that he sent (Note this, sent, not allowed) his son to be murdered. Just as through Adam and Eve all humanity was contaminated with evil, so through one man, Jesus, evil was defeated.

Originally posted by MasterMothra
eru was a more loving and understanding god, than the one portrayed in the bible. he did not unjustly punish his children for their mistakes. i dont remember tolkien saying that feanor went to hell for what he did, or sauron for that matter. they were all his creatures and he loved them.

Tolkien never said what happened after death to Ilúvatar's creations. And I personally think that if he didn't punish Feanor, or Sauron especially for their actions, he would be far less good of a God then the one Christians serve. Our God is a God of justice. He doesn't make people do evil. They do evil because evil entered into their nature, something that they did against God's will. And when they did evil, because he was a good God, he opened up an avenue through which they can come back to him. This was sending his own son to die for us. God loves far more deeply than humans do, and thus it can be assumed that he loves his son more deeply than humans love their children. The crucifixion hurt him deeply, but it was necessary for the saving of his children. The exact technical spiritual method by which the crucifixion defeated sin isn't currently known to us. But by sending down his son from heaven to die to save us from our sins, this displays an extremely deep love for humanity and it shows his mercy. Rather than letting us condemn ourselves and live with no chance of righteousness, trapped in the devil's clutches, he opened the door to him, which was Jesus. When one accepts Jesus into their heart, he frees the person from ignorance and sin.

If, however, people refuse to accept Jesus into their hearts and thereby refuse to accept God's mercy, then they are punished for their own actions. Their own actions, not God's. If God didn't punish unrepentant evil and show justice, I don't think that he'd be a God I'd care as much to serve.

[MasterMothra]

from this i gather that the jews and muslims will suffer eternal damnation in hell, since they dont accept jesus as the son of god,
only as a prophet of his word?

as for sauron and feanor's punishment, i guess it wasnt that important to tolkien since he didnt mention it.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by MasterMothra
from this i gather that the jews and muslims will suffer eternal damnation in hell, since they dont accept jesus as the son of god,
only as a prophet of his word?

All I can say is what I said in my last post. If God wasn't just, I don't think I'd care to serve him. He knows what is within a human heart, and he can understand us. Sin is punished if one doesn't accept mercy. Whether there are different levels of pain that one endures, or whether there is a second chance once there, I don't know. That is all up to God, but I know that he is just, and I doubt that those people who don't accept Jesus as their savior will be going straight to heaven. God might give them a second chance after death if he feels it is right, I simply don't know how he decides what's to be done with each human heart. But I know that he does it with justice.

Originally posted by MasterMothra
as for sauron and feanor's punishment, i guess it wasnt that important to tolkien since he didnt mention it.

I think Tolkien probably thought about it. I don't know whether he ever came up with an answer in his own mind, but it wasn't important to his story, so he didn't include it in the Silmarillion.

[Andúril]

Not getting involved in this one, thanks.

[Lief Erikson]

[Rían]

OK, MasterMothra, let me address the "murder" issue from your next-to-last post and the "hell" issue from your last post, now that I have a bit of quiet time.

re murder : no, it was not in any way murder. Please remember some of the things that Jesus did - in addition to the healings, raising Lazarus from the dead, etc., several times he was surrounded by hoards of angry people that wanted to kill Him and He just quietly walked away (a pretty amazing miracle!). In the garden of Gethsemene, when He allowed himself to be captured, at one point He spoke and the people fell to the ground. He could have easily escaped, but the whole point was to go thru with giving up His life for us. In fact, the Bible even says when Jesus was on the cross and had fulfilled the last prophecy by drinking the soured wine, that He "gave up His spirit" - in other words, He didn't just die, it was a voluntary death of His choosing at the right time. The Bible also refers to the fact that Jesus had hosts of angels at his call that could have come to His aid, but He didn't call them, because that would have defeated the purpose. So "murder" is a totally inappropriate word. Now please don't argue my point by saying "how do we know that He did all those miracles?", because that isn't the point here - you said how could God let His Son be murdered, and I am explaining to you the Biblical viewpoint - God did NOT "let His Son be murdered".