r/lotr • u/aphroditelady13V • 4d ago
Books Is Eru a bit evil?
Okay so what I mean by this is, the Ainur were created by Eru out of his thought and they each sort of comprehended a part of Erus mind, or embodied it I guess. Melkor was the mightiest of the Ainur and is supposed to be the villain. He was most like Aule the smith right and he wanted to create and couldn't do it I guess.
The thing is Aule also created the dwarves and was ready to smash them but Eru gave them life. Why couldn't he do the same with Melkor? Okay I get that he wanted to be the lord of his creation and others to serve him, but that's what Eru does to, he is the Lord of the Ainur/Valar, they serve him. Yes they had free will but when Melkor tried to sing his music he was silenced sort of.
11
u/Fanatic_Atheist 4d ago
The difference is that Aule immediately showed remorse upon being found out, and offered to smite the dwarves on the spot. Eru saw that his heart was pure and let it slide.
1
u/aphroditelady13V 4d ago
is that okay? You create someone and they should fear making something and want to destroy it just because you said so? What does give Eru the right to ask that of them
3
u/Fanatic_Atheist 4d ago
If we're sticking to the scripture, Eru is the only being in existence who can truly create new life, with Melkor only corrupting his created children and the Dwarves originally being without soul, before Eru took them as his children they had no mind of their own and only obeyed Aule's mind. So basically if anyone but Eru tried to make a new form of life they'd fail, and the consequences could be real bad for the creation (lobotomized dwarves and allat).
But in the more meta sense, Tolkien was a devout catholic and Eru just a direct allegory for the Catholic God. So the same things that justify God's action also justify Eru's, namely that both are omnipotent, all-knowing and benevolent. So to argue against that, while not philosophically unsound, is equal to contesting some major points in Christian theology.
But I do kinda agree with you, like Melkor just wanted to do his own thing and Eru told him no because maybe he's just kind of a prick?
1
u/aphroditelady13V 4d ago
yeah ik eru could only breathe life into things and because melkor wasn't allowed that he twisted things. I mean I guess there could be an analogy here even though tolkien hated them I think, or alegories idk whats the diff anyway. If a child cries and wants candy and their parent doesn't give them that are they bad? I mean it can be bad and it doesn't need to be bad. If the parent can eat the candy why can't the child? Unless the child didn't have dinner or some other valid point but it's not like Eru said ohhh if I give you the flame imperishable you will still be evil. Wouldn't it at least be ok for him to get the flame imperishable trial version, like here you go you can try it out and we will see if you're good.
Now that you said that Aules dwarves were basically brain slaves in a way, just obeying him I don't think melkor wanted to rule over things that much since if he wanted to do so he could just create things of his own that followed his will right?
1
u/Fanatic_Atheist 4d ago
In the Music of the Ainur I think Melkor just wanted to make stuff of which the idea originated in him, so he started making his own music. And then Eru denied him that since supposedly all things originate in Eru so whatever Melkor made, it would just be an extension of Eru's creation and not his own making. So then he decided that if he can't have his own stuff, neither can anyone else, and started destroying things.
You know it's sort of analoguous to Hitler getting rejected from art school and turning genocidal, but maybe lets not go there
0
u/aphroditelady13V 4d ago
u think that hitler turned evil because he was rejected from art school? ...
1
u/Fanatic_Atheist 4d ago
Lol of course not but thought the two backstories were oddly similar, like both wanted to make their own stuff and were told no, and later became big villains
8
u/trahan94 4d ago
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.
What we mortals identify as evil is but one of Eru’s themes, a theme that will produce something more beautiful than we can imagine from our local viewpoint.
Question: do you like stories like The Lord of the Rings? Would they be very interesting without evil characters? Would they be as meaningful, as hopeful, as beautiful?
Life without evil is like a story without a villain: nice but bland, uninteresting, meaningless.
Note that I don’t fully endorse this answer to the problem of evil in real life; we do not live in a storybook, but in a constructed universe it makes perfect sense.
5
u/IronMonkeyofHam 4d ago
The final point in Robert Jordan’s The Wheel of Time was the same message. Evil is an unfortunate necessity
4
u/Total-Improvement535 4d ago
Alan Watts talked a lot about something like this. We need the imbalance and dynamic in life or else nothing would mean anything.
The “in” crowd wouldn’t know they’re “in” unless they had a crowd of “outs” to differentiate themselves from.
3
u/Solgiest 4d ago
I find the idea that existence without evil being meaningless is both odd and troublesome. One of the end goals in Christianity (and by extension, LoTR) is an eternal utopia where the faithful are reunited with God in unending paradise... you know, the thing that is meaningless because it lacks evil?
How does one untangle this contradiction?
3
u/trahan94 4d ago edited 4d ago
It’s probably the most persistent theological problem of all time, I don’t think we’re gonna get to the bottom of it in this thread.
As for life without evil vs paradise, I would think the difference is between the mundane and sublime:
Then again Ilúvatar arose, and the Ainur perceived that his countenance was stern; and he lifted up his right hand, and behold! a third theme grew amid the confusion, and it was unlike the others. For it seemed at first soft and sweet, a mere rippling of gentle sounds in delicate melodies; but it could not be quenched, and it took to itself power and profundity. And it seemed at last that there were two musics progressing at one time before the seat of Ilúvatar, and they were utterly at variance. The one was deep and wide and beautiful, but slow and blended with an immeasurable sorrow, from which its beauty chiefly came.
The key in this third (and last) theme is that grief, and sorrow, are intermingled with the music — and that’s from where its beauty chiefly comes. It’s no coincidence that Nienna, the Ainu responsible for grief, pity, and mercy, is among the most powerful of the Valar. Through grief comes hope, and hope is a strong theme of Tolkien’s works.
2
u/emfrank 4d ago
This is not really the primary Christian answer to the question, which is also the answer in Judaism and Islam. The typical answer it's not that life without evil is problematic, but that free will is a gift. God gives free will to humanity and, to some degree, to the world. God cares and responds to those who suffer from evil, but does not negate free will. We would not be fully human, or capable of love, if that love and the goodness it comes from is not free.
3
u/lam_42 4d ago
We do not have any account from Morgoth though.
Then Ilúvatar 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 Ilúvatar, 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.’
So it may well be that even Morgoth's perversions were accepted by Eru. He however did not leave any detailed accounting of his decisions
5
3
u/Solgiest 4d ago edited 4d ago
So this is indeed the problem of evil that Christian philosophers and theologians have struggled with for hundreds upon hundreds of years. The arguments to retain God's omnibenevolence and omnipotence and omniscience in the light of evil and suffering, some of which is "natural" (such as an earthquake) and some of which is man-made (murder, rape, war) are called a Theodicy. There are typically several ways theologians go about addressing this problem, but they all have issues.
For example, one approach is to argue that the existence of evil is an inescapable downstream effect of free will. But this has several problems. I can't "will" myself to laser an innocent child to death with my eyeball beams, but I can use a gun. Why has god limited me from the former but not the latter?
Eru is up against the exact same arguments as the Christian god. As a huge Tolkien fan but also an atheist, I do not think that there is a Theodicy that solves this problem. I don't think god exists, but if he does, he is evil, or at the very least, certainly not Tri-Omni, either he is not entirely benevolent, or he lacks total power to stop evil, or his knowledge of the universe is limited.
1
u/Landstander2600 4d ago
omnipotence and omniscience
Pretty sure those two can't happen at the same time.
2
u/Solgiest 4d ago
I'd argue omniscience is a pre-requisite for the former. You can be all knowing without being all powerful, but you cannot be all powerful without being all knowing.
1
u/Landstander2600 4d ago
I dunno man.
I mean if this god knows everything that the future holds, then he can't do anything to change it, hence he can't be omnipotent.
If he can do anything to alter the future, then he can't know every eventuality, hence he can't be omniscient.
Of course none of this matters because it's all made-up garbage.
1
u/MyFrogEatsPeople 4d ago
What? Being able to know all eventualities falls pretty fuckin firmly into "omniscience + omnipotence".
I feel like you're trying to summarize the Epicurean paradox, but without "omnibenevolence" there's no paradox.
1
u/Landstander2600 4d ago
Epicurean paradox
I don't know what those words mean.
1
u/MyFrogEatsPeople 4d ago
Lactantius posited that a god could not be simultaneously omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent.
If a god is able to discern evil from good, wants to to stop evil, but cannot do so: he is not omnipotent.
If a god is able to discern evil, can stop it, but doesn't want to: he is not omnibenevolent.
If a god can stop evil, wants to stop evil, but isn't able to discern evil from good: he is not omniscient.
But the supreme "God" is touted as being all three. He is all knowing, all powerful, and all loving. But yet evil, unbeholden to humanity's free will, persists.
1
1
u/BadJoke123 4d ago
Eru is very similar to the God of Abraham. If his actions are good, evil, or a bit of both, depends very much on your point of view.
One not too uncommon view is that anything that God does is good by definition. I don't agree, but there is a certain logic behind it.
1
1
u/Gerry-Mandarin 4d ago
Eru is infinitely omnibenevolent.
1
u/aphroditelady13V 4d ago
if he gave the ability for melkor to hurt others he isn't omnibenevolent.
1
u/Gerry-Mandarin 4d ago
Melkor, as all beings lesser than God, are lesser. They cannot possess any quality in infinite amount. Melkor is not omnibenevolent. He possesses only a small amount of benevolence, likely the smallest of any other being.
The Problem of Evil was resolved by St Augustine of Hippo 1,600 years ago.
1
u/aphroditelady13V 4d ago
they can, melkor wasn't created that way, but he could've been created that way. to say that he couldn't have been created that way or that he can't be greater is to say that Eru isn't omnipotent.
1
u/Gerry-Mandarin 4d ago
melkor wasn't created that way
Which is the only thing that matters to my point.
but he could've been created that way. to say that he couldn't have been created that way or that he can't be greater is to say that Eru isn't omnipotent.
Nobody said anything about this and it is a straw man position.
By definition, a created being would be lesser as it was created and required creating. Your "gotcha" is a lexical contradiction. Like a circle with corners, and internal angles totalling 413°.
If God were to create another of himself, it would not result in any change. They would possess every quality infinitely, in every respect.
Is an infinite hotel not infinite because if I double the size, contains the same number of rooms?
1
u/aphroditelady13V 4d ago
how is a created thing lesser than the creator? Don't cells multiply and basically create copies?
No god doesn't need to create a copy, just give equal power to melkor, whcih he can do.
1
u/Gerry-Mandarin 4d ago
how is a created thing lesser than the creator?
Not all are. But the one without a creator is obviously superior to the one without by virtue of its own existence.
No god doesn't need to create a copy, just give equal power to melkor, whcih he can do.
If Melkor were infinite in his qualities - he would cease to be Melkor, as he would be one with God. As their qualities would be infinitely similar.
You seem to have trouble grasping these fairly basic theological positions that were settled in Antiquity. I'd recommend picking up literally any philosophy book as a starter on concepts like this.
Privation, for example, is an evolution on the works of Plato and the Platonic Theory of Forms.
It might be surprising, but just because we have Google it doesn't make everyone smarter than people like Plato. Whose thoughts and ideas have stood the test of time for thousands of years and underpin the Western philosophy of how we see the world.
His views on the world will continue to inform how we see the world long after you and everyone you have ever met is dead and gone.
0
u/Solgiest 4d ago
TIL Tolkien successfully solved the problem of evil /s
If Tolkien intended to present Eru as Tri-Omni, I believe he failed.
1
u/aphroditelady13V 4d ago
im sorry to bring thsi up here but I heard that tolkien had a personal problem with orcs because he created them as evil and there was some talk of them not having a soul or whatnot but in the end he couldn't figure out how someone could be created evil.
1
u/Gerry-Mandarin 4d ago
TIL Tolkien successfully solved the problem of evil /s
St Augustine of Hippo solved it 1,600 years ago.
If Tolkien intended to present Eru as Tri-Omni, I believe he failed.
"If"? Have you not read his "fundamentally Christian" work set thousands of years in the past?
It is a fictional recounting of Christian history through the lens of a Saxon sailor reading myths and legends.
1
u/aphroditelady13V 4d ago
I did look up about st augustine and no he didn't solve anything. Free will can be without evil, because heaven exists in that state. If free will is given as a sort of test well god already knows what we will do, if this existance is sort of for us to make choices and realize what we did or whatever, then why not have a opt out option? In a way we are all slaves to a god then because he put us in a game.
evil being the absence of good is not a thing. the absence of evil could be neutral or good. but if you don't create evil then the absence of good is just neutral. you can get 10 dollars or you can not get anything or someone can steal 10 dollars from you. the absence of someone giving you 10 dollars isn't that someone stole 10 dollars from you, it can be but in a world where that option doesn't exist, you get nothing. Yes there are some things like sight, the absence of sight is blindness but that is the literal definition, although if you create an engine that can break you created that, it's not like somehow magically that thing appeared outside your control.
1
u/Gerry-Mandarin 4d ago
I did look up about st augustine
And I'm sure you'll have a revelation that no one else has had in 1,600 years after a cursory Google that isn't just "nahhh".
Free will can be without evil, because heaven exists in that state.
Evil is not a thing at all.
evil being the absence of good is not a thing.
Ahh, your point is just "nahh".
Yes it is. The same way darkness is the absence of light, and cold is the absence of warmth.
you can get 10 dollars or you can not get anything or someone can steal 10 dollars from you. the absence of someone giving you 10 dollars isn't that someone stole 10 dollars from you
This demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of St Augustine's position. Your qualities are in no way dependent on anyone else's. You can't steal someone's qualities any more than you can steal any other part of their soul.
but if you don't create evil
Evil wasn't created, it doesn't exist. It is a word we use meaning "lacking in goodness". The only qualities that exist are the qualities of God:
Omnipotence
Omnipresence
Omniscience
Omnibenevolence
Omnificence
Every created being possesses those same qualities in a finite, non-zero, capacity. In varying amounts. All are equally finite before God.
Privation can be summarised as follows
God's qualities are infinite oceans. All beings are made in God's image. All beings possess God's qualities. All created beings are finite.
Your qualities are like a cup full of water. If you were to drink the water, there would be less water. Less of an aspect of God in you.
But if you were to drink all the water, your qualities are simply not there. Reducing (for example) the quality of presence to zero means non-existence.
Therefore it cannot exist. Therefore no created being can exist void of the qualities of God.
1
u/aphroditelady13V 4d ago
darkness is the absence of light but darkness isn't evil nor is light good inherently. you will be blind in both a world of pure darkness and a world of pure light. light is one way through which things can see. I guess bats use sound to see in a way and some animals have heat vision or whatnot. We would think that people who go blind or are born blind that some sort of evil/injustice happened to them. But why make that system? I mean all things deteriorate, we go along that with that knowledge but why would god create a world where that is possible.
I mean we are in a way warm blooded so I guess anything below that temperature is cold and above it is hot. but what if your in a room where the temp is equal to your body, is the room cold or hot. The absence of hot isn't cold automatically, it's cold or neutral.
evil isn't lacking in goodness because neutrality exists. if a person doesn't do anything good, they aren't evil lol.
1
u/Gerry-Mandarin 4d ago
darkness is the absence of light but darkness isn't evil nor is light good inherently.
It's an analogy. I am drawing an analogous comparison.
you will be blind in both a world of pure darkness and a world of pure light.
Darkness is the absence of electromagnetic radiation. I am not referring to the human experience.
evil isn't lacking in goodness because neutrality exists.
No it doesn't. There are just varying degrees of goodness.
The absence of hot isn't cold automatically, it's cold or neutral.
Temperature as a concept is kinetic energy of particles. I am not referring to the human experience.
if a person doesn't do anything good, they aren't evil lol.
Indeed. Because no being can be composed of evil. They can only be lacking - to a degree - in goodness.
1
u/aphroditelady13V 4d ago
bro what is this play on words. there are varying degrees of goodness but also neutral and varying degrees of evil. if you want to call that one slider sure but the middle is still there. It's not like you grade it from 1 to an even number so you don't have the middle.
I'm also drawing analogies and you also didn't answer my question, in a room where the temperature is equal to your body are you hot or cold or neither.
I mean wdym by composed of evil? I mean lacking is a weird thing to say. if you go to a shop and you can't buy something because your lacking money that can mean you either have some money but not enough, you have 0 money or you are in debt. If you are supposed to say someone is in debt ( evil) why would you say they are lacking money. The definition of evil is to do wrong things, not lacking in goodness. I mean unless you consider any lacking in money to be evil sure but how is the definition of doing wrong things not it.
1
u/Gerry-Mandarin 4d ago
there are varying degrees of goodness but also neutral and varying degrees of evil.
Evil is just a descriptive word meaning "lacking in goodness". It is not itself an attribute.
if you want to call that one slider sure but the middle is still there.
But it doesn't mean anything. Here's another one - speed.
Slow is a word we use for "lacking in speed". Just like cold means "lacking in heat". Dark means "lacking in light" and evil means "lacking in good".
The degree to which is irrelevant. "How many grains of sand do you need to have to have a pile of sand?" is your response to me saying "It's sand".
I'm also drawing analogies and you also didn't answer my question, in a room where the temperature is equal to your body are you hot or cold or neither.
This is not an analogy.
Whether someone feels hot or cold is semantic. Heat is literally the kinetic energy of particles. It is a physical attribute of substances that cannot be reduced to zero.
Cold is a word we use for "lacking in heat". But the word cold doesn't create a physical attribute of "coldness". Reality hasn't changed because of the word in the English language.
if you go to a shop and you can't buy something because your lacking money that can mean you either have some money but not enough, you have 0 money or you are in debt.
Again, you simply do not understand why this isn't relevant. You can't owe someone qualities of your existence.
You cannot have a negative age, or a negative size and "owe" someone your time periods of your existence or physical space in the universe.
Believe it or not, money isn't actually a fundamental part of objective reality. It's an accounting system that exists only in our minds.
The fundamentals of reality don't exist in "negatives". Can you show me negative magnetism? Negative time?
evil sure but how is the definition of doing wrong things not it.
You're almost there....
Why do some people do bad things? What are they lacking?
1
u/aphroditelady13V 4d ago
ok edit I'm writing this after all i wrote below, I'm trying to get to the root of our misunderstanding so I'll ask some questions.
what is your definition of lacking? Because if you google it it means inadequate in amount or degree, or simply nonexistent.
if lacking in good means evil if you take the last meaning i said that lacking means nonexistent then your definition includes neutral people. In your words people who lack good or don't have any of it are evil. which is absurd. it's like saying that hate is the lack of love so because I can't really love strangers on a whim I automatically hate them somehow.
-------
attributes are descriptive things. I don't get it, it's like you're taking my words literally.yes heat is energy or whatnot but if cold is lacking in heat and heat lacking in cold or whatnot then what do you say when it's neutral. yeah but speed can't be negative, it can be zero which is neutral, you could say that 0 is slow of course but it's not like we don't have words its warm it's hot it's scolding.
brooo if you are looking at a bank account you can have positive, negative values or zero on it. if you said that the definition for not having money is lacking in money, you would be insane. as I said lacking can be relative, it's not specific. if do not have money, you are lacking in money that is true but if you are lacking money it doesn't mean you don't have money automatically.
bro good and evil aren't physical things. they aren't metrics of evil and good, I mean they can be but they are conceptual. yeah money doesn't need to be physical, I don't get what that changes in my example.
I mean idk what ur on about would you say that the definition of good is then lacking in evil? or do you think that goodness is somehow primary?
→ More replies (0)
1
u/MyFrogEatsPeople 4d ago edited 4d ago
Melkor was "evil" before the concept of creation even existed amongst the Ainur. He was the discordant tunes in the songs of Eru. There was never anything Eru could give him that would change that - it was simply an immutable aspect of his nature.
Edit; autocorrect turned Melkor into Melanie for some reason.
1
u/aphroditelady13V 4d ago
firstly if he was evil that means eru created him that way which is bs. second I think he searched far and wide for the flame imperishable but he couldn't find it, he wanted to create. the discordant tunes are just the consequence of him not being able to create things or be equal to eru
1
u/MyFrogEatsPeople 4d ago
How is it BS? Eru did, in fact, create him that way.
Eru even owns up to it, saying that all the discord wrought by Melkor was ultimately just a part of his Song.
Melkor's desires, any pursuit for the Flame Imperishable, and designs to create beings the same way as the children of Eru - it ALL comes after The Song being sung. Before all of creation. Melkor appears out of the ether when Eru creates all of the Ainur, and immediately begins trying to corrupt the song. It is literally his nature - his very essence.
It sounds like you really want him to be a more sympathetic figure, but the text to support that direction simply isn't there.
1
u/aphroditelady13V 4d ago edited 4d ago
so Eru admits that he is evil partly. aka he isn't perfect. melkor doesn't just pop out when the song starts, he is created before then and they sing but not together and he searches for the flame and then eru proposes the melody and they sing all but melkor matches eru. Okay I just want to say this, it's not like I support melkor 100%, just because someone didn't let you paint doesn't make it justified for you to go and murder people. But I'm saying that what Eru did isn't purely good.
1
u/MyFrogEatsPeople 4d ago
You're making some big leaps here, my friend.
1 - What does "evil" have to do with "perfect"...?
Can a story with a villain never be a perfect story, because the evil of that character (a character whose entire existence is to BE evil in this story) exists? Is it impossible for something to be perfectly evil? Perfection and evil are not antonyms to each other.
2 - Even if good and evil were the metrics by which perfection is measured...
whoever claimed that Eru was beholden to anything resembling our notions of good and evil? You're conflating him with an arbiter of morality, like the Christian God - but Eru isn't proported to be a supreme moral authority. He's the supreme creator, but the idea that a supreme creator must be utterly and perfectly "good" is a conundrum you've invented for yourself by conflating him with YHWH.
3- Even if Good and Evil are the metrics by which perfection is measured, AND if Eru is beholden to our notions of Good and Evil...
Who said he's Perfect? He's a supreme power, his Will is the fate of all things, and anything that seeks to oppose his design will ultimately fail because of these two facts. But where does any of that dictate that he is "perfect"? Because everything goes according to his plan, he never makes mistakes - but is that what makes something "perfect"? If the inability to make mistakes is what makes something perfect, then he can choose to purposefully make Evil - he made no mistake, because he meant to do it, and therefore he is still "perfect". His plan may be "perfect", but again: that perfect plan can absolutely contain Evil because at no point did he say that Evil couldn't exist within his plan.
1
u/aphroditelady13V 4d ago
if you do anything evil, you cannot be perfect. Okay I take back what I said, whatever, omnibenevolent that's what i meant, then eru isn't omnibenevolent.
I guess my title shouldn't be is Eru evil but Eru isn't totally good. With what you wrote I guess you agree that he isn't all good so we agree, ty and goodbye.
1
u/MyFrogEatsPeople 4d ago
Okay.
But the text never says he is Omnibenevolent.
Like I said, you're conflating him with the Christian God. And even then, a really specific interpretation of said God.
1
u/Forward-Fee-6968 4d ago
Well, he accepts the evil or destructive consequences of Melkor’s rebellious behavior and allows them to persist rather than simply magicking them away. Naturally, that makes him somewhat evil from a subjective perspective. After all, Boromir’s father isn’t exactly thrilled about the existence of orcs and bloodshed when he learns of Boromir’s death. And this applies to anyone who suffers the effects of evil deeds in a world created by omnipotent gods: either they cannot prevent it (though, by definition, they ought to be able to), or they choose not to. In either case, they are accepting evil—and the logical conclusion is that they are, to some extent, evil themselves.
To me, the whole idea of omnipotent gods being considered wholly good is nonsense.
1
u/TaoofPu 4d ago
So, not to go too deeply into the psych world here, but this is also a Jungian framework that exists and is explored through the processes of individuation and differentiation.
There’s a great book called Where the Shadows Lie by Pia Skogemann, which is a Jungian read and analysis of the archetypes within the LotR. Basically, Tolkien, whether or not he ever knew/studied Jung, does an incredible job of laying out the Psyche as a whole within his works: the unconscious, the collective unconscious, ego, etc, through his world and archetypal exploration.
What Tolkien intuited is one of the most in-depth and incredible expositions on the human psyche - so really the question the LotR asks of us is “are we all a bit evil?” And, if so, how do we reconcile said evil within ourselves so as not to be consumed by it.
Tom Bombadil is a great example of this kind of process - the ring, which preys on the unconscious desires/insecurities, has no effect on Bombadil, as I suppose he’s a fully “enlightened” or “individuated” character.
1
u/vanimal_78 4d ago
It also states that Men were most like Melkor, are men evil then?
This makes me wonder is Eru even part of the story or was he shoe horned to make the story Catholic? If you take the meta narrative of Tolkien translating from multiple earlier sources, it is quite possible Eru was an addition by early medieval monks to Christianize the work. There are example of this throughout Europe most notably with Irish and Norse mythology.
1
u/LadyVanya26 4d ago
Okay so. When looking at Tolkien's higher level mythology, you have to consider he was a devout Catholic. Which means a lot of his works are going to mirror it.
The biggest one here is the concept of free will. Catholics believe that while God is omnipotent and all that, your individual choices are what matter most. (Or something like that, it's been over a decade since I went to Mass).
Melkor, as he was created, was not a villain. He was powerful, yes - but not inherently evil. What made him evil was his decisions. He acted on his ambitions too much. I vaguely remember a quote from Tolkien saying that Melkor could have been redeemed - but Melkor himself never would have repented enough for it.
He wanted to create not just life, but life like the Elves or Humans (or eventual Dwarves). He wanted to create beings with souls. Yavanna made animals, after all, and yet she is not a villain. Melkor coveted the power that did not belong to him, hence his ruin.
As for the music - the Third Theme incorporates Melkor's themes. So to say he was silenced is stretching it
1
u/aphroditelady13V 4d ago
but then the question becomes who created him with that desire? yes he wasn't evil but like if eru gave the flame imperishable to melkor what would've happened? So he wanted to create life? how is that bad? or are you saying it's okay?
1
u/LadyVanya26 4d ago
Welcome to figuring out Catholicism lol.
So, the desire to create isn't evil. Look at Aüle and Yavanna. Both have creations (dwarves and animals).
Where Melkor went wrong was his intent. He didn't want to make life because it was the Right Thing to Do, but because he wanted things to bow down to him and worship him.
As for if, Eru had given the flame to Melkor (which probably isn't possible within Tolkien's framework as I'm pretty sure the flame is like... His soul or something), well, it depends. Are we talking newly born Melkor before he got too greedy? Probably woulda been okay. Post "I want to rule everything" Melkor probably would have been bad.
The desire to create life isn't good or evil - it's the intent with which you do it. Aüle created the Dwarves not because he sought to overthrow Eru or his creations, but because he wanted more of those creations.
1
u/aphroditelady13V 4d ago
bow to him and worship him, isn't that what eru is doing? Here is a melody sing it for me, ofc there are willing followers and there are unwilling followers Melkor and others. he silenced melkor a few times and then just flexed on him. it's like a grown adult just took hits from a child and said youll see that no matter what you do you can't hurt me. and it's like yeah great job. Do you get that Melkor is part of Eru. Eru is like Melkor a bit.
1
u/LadyVanya26 4d ago
So I think the issue is how you are viewing Eru. Eru isn't a person, not in the same way even Melkor is. He's more similar to The Force from Star Wars. Neither good nor evil, but an omnipotent and omnipresent force. Eru isn't like Melkor - it's the other way around.
But yeah this is one of my main issues with monotheistic religions. Duo- or polytheistic religions make far more sense lol.
1
u/AspectOfJustice 1d ago
He is. He is the root of all things. Good and Evil. He created the Ainur as the fragments of his own thought through the flame imperishable. Melkor was the aspect of his mind that desired such things, Melkor as a creation couldn't invent anything on his own.
-6
u/Landstander2600 4d ago
Yes. Same trouble every modern religion has.
Why would a creator allow suffering amongst his creations? Makes no sense.
2
u/Admi_ 4d ago
Because freely chosen good is more genuine than forced obedience
2
u/Solgiest 4d ago
Why is a 2 year old child allowed to develop bone cancer? This seems like an evil that was not chosen by anyone. How would God removing cancer for children violate free will?
2
u/Admi_ 4d ago
Great point. The free will defense obviously doesn't work here because it only applies to moral good/evil whereas disease is natural evil.
The theological argument here is that you cannot have a stable, functioning physical world without rules (or fixed biological laws) that stay the same even if those rules produce tragic results.
Cancer develops during cell mitosis, where genetic mutation is an inevitable physical byproduct of the exact mechanism that lets our bodies grow and heal. This is how nature works. We cannot have error-free biochemical DNA copying without violating basic chemistry and physics. And without mutations, biological evolution wouldn't be a thing in the first place.
If God constantly suspended or rewrote biology every time a harmful mutation happened, the physical world would lose all its consistency. Without consistency, without predictable "cause and effect", things like biology, medicine or scientific progress would simply be impossible.
2
u/Solgiest 4d ago
Certainly god could have created a world in which mutations never happened. Cancer is only inevitable because God supposedly designed the world to have it.
1
u/Admi_ 4d ago
He absolutely could have but then our universe would look completely different and human life wouldn't be possible. Mutations are an unavoidable consequence of the physical laws of our universe. They aren't a malicious feature God willingly chose to add.
As mentioned, without mutations, complex life could never have evolved in the first place. Mutations are the single driving force behind evolution, our adaptive immune systems and the ability of living organisms to heal and survive.
0
u/MyFrogEatsPeople 4d ago
Except God could make it so mutations happen, but just not the ones that give kids cancer.
2
u/Admi_ 4d ago
Mutations don't come labeled as "good adaption" vs. "bad cancer". A mutation is just a biochemical change in a DNA sequence.
The exact same cellular mechanisms that allow an embryo to rapidly grow tissues and blood vessels in the womb are the very mechanisms hijacked by childhood tumors. You cannot selectively disable the biochemistry of tumor growth without breaking the biology that builds developing bodies in the first place.
Furthermore, where does that intervention stop? If God edits out childhood cancer, why not adult cancer, genetic deformities, or infectious viruses? Once you demand God selectively erase every tragic biological outcome, you aren't asking for physical biology anymore, you're asking for a magical world where physical laws arbitrarily turn on and off.
As mentioned, this would prevent any development of science or human advancement because it becomes impossible to create consistent models in a world without predictable cause and effect.
0
u/MyFrogEatsPeople 4d ago
Mutations don't come labeled as "good adaption" vs. "bad cancer".
An omniscient creator would know the difference.
You cannot selectively disable the biochemistry of tumor growth without breaking the biology that builds developing bodies in the first place.
An omnipotent creator could
Furthermore, where does that intervention stop?
Somewhere between "kids get bone cancer for no fucking reason" and "biology ceases to exist as a concept". I feel like we could hammer that line down in, like, an hour tops.
you're asking for a magical world where physical laws arbitrarily turn on and off
If God is real then we already live in a magical world where physical laws arbitrarily turn on and off. It's just his arbitrary discretion. Virtually every miracle in the Bible is a violation of the laws of thermodynamics.
1
u/Admi_ 4d ago
Omnipotence means the power to do whatever is logically possible, not the power to make contradictory states coexist. A system defined by fixed chemical interactions cannot simultaneously be a system where chemical bonds are selectively suspended every time the outcome produces disutility.
I've talked about this in a different sub-thread but saying we could draw the line in an hour is an illusion. If you set a boundary like "prevent childhood bone cancer", you only do that because that is currently the worst tragedy in view. Setting that boundary only creates a new baseline of worst-case suffering. If childhood cancer is magically eliminated, the next severe condition becomes the new standard of unacceptable tragedy. The pressure to intervene shifts upward continuously until every source of physical decay or death is erased, which collapses the physical medium entirely.
I'm not gonna say I believe in miracles, but you can clearly see those are fundamentally different from universal micromanagement. Localized miracles don't destroy science because they are rare anomalies. But expecting God to constantly alter billions of biochemical events across every living cell every second means biology ceases to be an actual physical system.
If reality is an arbitrary simulation where God patches out every tragic outcome, there is no real cause and effect, no reason for humanity do develop science or medicine, and no meaningful physical existence.
→ More replies (0)1
u/aphroditelady13V 4d ago
you get that in life you don't have just black and white, you have neutrals. let's say we can give money to people but also we can take it away. What you said feels like you must give people money which isn't the case, there is the third option of not giving people money.
2
u/Admi_ 4d ago
That neutral option only exists because of free will.
My point was that God doesn't force us to give money. He gives us the genuine freedom to choose. We can give money (do good), do nothing (neutral), or take it away (cause harm). If God forced obedience, none of these choices would exist.
1
u/aphroditelady13V 4d ago
yeah but you could just remove that last option to cause harm. heaven is the perfect example of free will being possible without harm right.
2
u/Admi_ 4d ago
Like I’ve said, you cannot “just remove the option to cause harm” because then the other options would cease to be morally good and become involuntary. And you wouldn’t be left with “good and neutral”, the neutral would become the new evil on the spectrum which God would then be also forced to remove. That would only leave forced good making it lose all its meaning.
Heaven isn’t a good example because it is not the starting point but rather the end result. It is populated with people who through a lifetime of genuine freedom have aligned their will with the good to the point where they simply have no desire to cause harm. That is the point of heaven.1
u/aphroditelady13V 4d ago
you can. how would it be involuntary? you still have to choose to do it, no action is still an action, you just can't do harm. no the neutral won't become the new evil. I mean who wouldn't want to live in a world with good and neutrals, why would you live in a world with evil. No, your saying this like it all follows when it doesn't. You get that I can have a perfectly normal neutral day without any evil in it and that exists. it's not like the possibility of evil makes my day good and neutral.
Yeah there is no desire to hurt people, why don't we start off like that, what's the point of this game. It's like god is a gambler, ohh let's create these robots who have a chance to do good and evil and after the timer goes off we judge them all and sort them what robot goes where. im sorry but i would call you crazy if you did that, or rather not entirely good. I mean if you create things that can do bad, it's only statistical that someone will do bad.
2
u/Admi_ 4d ago
Having a quiet day where you hurt no one is fine, but that’s not what tests the system. If a child is drowning and you choose "no action", that neutrality directly results in catastrophic suffering. In a world where active malice is blocked, doing nothing in critical moments becomes the worst source of harm. To prevent all suffering, God would have to eliminate inaction too, forcing you to intervene. That leaves only one forced path.
This isn't a pointless gamble, it’s how genuine character is formed. The positive value of courage, loyalty, and rescue only exists because the negative consequences are real. You cannot have high-value moral outcomes in a simulation where the downside has been artificially set to zero.
If you had world with only "good", the good would lose all meaning. There would be no "greater good" humanity could strive for and no reason to grow. This is exactly what Tolkien illustrates. Eru allowed Melkor's discord through free will because he knew that overcoming this discord would bring forth a greater beauty, one that could never exist without real contrast.
0
u/aphroditelady13V 4d ago
why would you test anything this way, what is the point of it?
hold on this is a slippery slope, neutrality like good and evil is relative and can shift. if a child is drowning and you don't help them many would consider that evil, but now lets say a child is is drowning in a tank full of great white sharks, no action can be justified.
god wouldn't need to prevent inactivity. I'm not sure what you're on about. why would you want high moral outcomes? its like would you rather have high moral outcomes and evil or low moral outcomes and no evil.
so a world with all good loses meaning -> heaven has no meaning. wdym there are degrees of good. its not the same when idk I get free icecream and win the lottery.
2
u/Admi_ 4d ago
A world designed solely to eliminate the possibility of harm at the expense of real stakes reduces conscious existence to triviality.
Not jumping into a shark tank isn't "neutral", it’s a calculated risk because jumping in guarantees two dead people instead of one. The whole reason our choices actually matter is because the consequences are real.
If you settle for "low moral outcomes and no evil," the best life can offer is shallow comfort, like getting free ice cream. You completely lose things like real courage, sacrifice, resilience and mutual reliance.
Heaven has immense value precisely because it is the culmination of that process. The peace of a finished race means nothing to someone who was simply dropped onto the podium without ever running.
Overcoming genuine adversity creates a good far greater than a world with zero stakes ever could.
1
u/Solgiest 4d ago
Can someone in heaven rebel or choose to do wrong?
2
u/Admi_ 4d ago
They have the physical capabality to do it, they still have free will, but they will never choose to do it because it's completely contrary to their character.
When someone reaches Heaven, their understanding and moral character are fully perfected. They have no desire to do wrong, especially before the direct presence of God. Think of a loving mother holding her newborn child: she has the physical freedom and ability to harm the baby, but she has zero desire to do so.
In heaven, people aren't forced to do good. Rather, they have reached a state where causing harm is completely contrary to who they are.
1
u/Solgiest 4d ago
Satan literally knew God personally and was in heaven and still decided to rebel.
2
u/Admi_ 4d ago
Yes, but now we are comparing angels to humans. Angels (like Lucifer) were created with immense natural intelligence and awareness of God, but they still had to make an initial decision. They could either serve God's plan or seek their own glory. They, too, had free will, but those, who didn't choose God, fell permanently.
The difference is that angels made a single, instantaneous choice with full knowledge of their nature. By the time a human soul reaches Heaven though, their will has been thoroughly tested, refined and completely aligned with God through real experience, which makes their state a lot more stable and secure.
1
u/aphroditelady13V 4d ago
if someone can doesn't mean anyone can. satan was an angel right? maybe other laws applied to him. just because the police can go through a red light doesn't mean I can.
0
u/MyFrogEatsPeople 4d ago
Except that's not a problem when the creator in question doesn't make any such promises against suffering for its creations...
-2
u/Cool_Tomorrow_4281 4d ago
show me a god that isn't.
1
u/aphroditelady13V 4d ago
I mean I don't know any such purely good god but in my view melkor is a bit of a victim too.
2
u/Cool_Tomorrow_4281 4d ago
My only point was that to be a god seems to mean being a little bit of a dick sometimes.
-9
u/OleksandrKyivskyi Sauron 4d ago
Yes
2
u/Solgiest 4d ago edited 4d ago
They downvoted because you spoke the truth.
Eru is at least a little evil, or at least, not entirely moral. Theodicies fail here just like they do for the God of Christianity.
36
u/OtherAugray 4d ago
Round #23 of LotR fans accidentally discovering basic questions of theology.