Ilúvatar - kind?

[Ithrynluin]

This is a follow up of this debate Nóm and myself were having here: Was Ilúvatar upset at anytime with the evil thoughts and meanings from MELKOR?

Plain and simple: Is Ilúvatar/God in Christianity supposed to be kind?

If he cares for his Children and take pity on their sorrows...Why does he not prevent their suffering then?

Or does he only care that they act out his greater plan and rewards them because of it (e.g.: Frodo, Eärendil, Beren and Lúthien...)?

 

[FoolOfATook]

Or does he only care that they act out his greater plan and rewards them because of it

This is the only part of your question I feel qualified in answering, and only then because I can answer it with a quote.

'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 insturment in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined.'

-From Ainulindale

I think that we can take this a step further, and see that everything that happens can only advance Eru's plan. Since everything that happens acts out his greater plan then, there's no logic in Eru rewarding those who act it out, if you see what I mean.

 

[Ithrynluin]

I think that we can take this a step further, and see that everything that happens can only advance Eru's plan. Since everything that happens acts out his greater plan then, there's no logic in Eru rewarding those who act it out, if you see what I mean.

If EVERYTHING that happens acts out Eru's plan, why does Eru not prevent suffering then?

What if he restrained Melkor the moment he started wreaking havoc in Arda? If there was peace in Middle Earth from the very beginning, would Eru's plan reach fulfillment? Or can greater good only come out of evil?

 

[Celebithil]

Things would be boring if not for Melkor who wants to read about peace not me. HeHe

 

[Celebthôl]

Well whats the point in being mollycoddled?! soon people would get board of it and start making trouble for themselves anyway its human nature...

 

[Nenya Evenstar]

Yes, I believe that Iluvatar was supposed to be kind. Why then did He allow suffering? I believe that there were a few reasons: He wanted His creations to know that no matter what evil they could do that in the end it would glorify Him. Is this selfish? I do not think so. All peoples and races of Middle-earth had the choice to do good or evil. If you made a creation would you want it to have no self-choice? I wouldn't. I would want the creation to love me as its maker, not turn its back on me. This is why Iluvatar allowed evil to continue in Middle-earth: because if He intervened He would take away free choice and no one would follow good out of true goodness, but out of no other choice. So, He gave each person the choice to either do good or evil and would stop neither, for all honour to Himself and to all his creations would be lost if He made good involuntary. What good is a person if he/she is unable to decide whether to be good or evil?

So in other words, he allows evil to remain because if He were to intervene, free will would be taken away (in a sense).

I hope that made sense . . . this is a very interesting topic.

 

[Beleg]

He allows evil to remain inorder to keep a ballance. Without the presence of evil there is no value of Good. Perhaps he wanted to show his soverignity through this by implying that no matter what choas the evil sides send abroad the victor in the end will always be the good side.

I think from the start Eru allowed the evil to remain in the world so that people should cherish the importance of Good. Basically i agree with Nenya.

 

[jallan]

Ilúvatar is of course, simply and plainly God, as seen in monotheistic belief.

As to why evil exists, Tolkien may have had some thoughts on that, but I don’t see him trying to express them in his creation of a mythology that basically accepts, as appears in Christian, Jewish, Islamic and Zarathustran belief and legend that God is good and God allows evil to exist and that evil began as rebellion against god.

Tolkien similarly does not write about why air exists or why fire burns.

For a discussion of the problem of evil from a Roman Catholic point of view, see Theodicy which has lots of links indicating various theories.

I know nothing written by Tolkien that indicates his feelings about such.

 

[Nenya Evenstar]

I actually have to say that I believe whatever Christian beliefs concerning good and evil that Tolkien had did affect his writing of the books. They were completely ingraned into Tolkien's very mind . . . how could he write a book without adding those elements in, whether subconsiously or not?

I do know that Tolkien was extremely passionate about his religion -- The Letters seems to solidify that over and over. Since his belief was such a part of him, I do not see him changing that when he wrote his mythology. I believe that Tolkien's beliefs ring clearly throughout the books.

 

[jallan]

Nenya Evenstart, I was not denying at all that Tolkien religious and moral belief’s appear in his work.

What I was noting was that in Christian (and Roman Catholic) tradition there have been various attempts to deal with the problem of evil in a world created and governed by a good God (and I gave a link which provides further links to much Roman Catholic and general Christian discussion of these).

But Tolkien, so far as I am aware, never gives his own thoughts about this problem or these theories.

The only time I am aware that Tolkien brings it up is in Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, letter 211:

That Sauron was not himself destroyed in the anger of the One is not my fault: the problem of evil, and its apparent toleration, is a permanent one for all who concern themselves with our world.

This suggests some disatisfaction with the various theories, at least in providing a complete explanation, which is also a good Christian response.

One should not expect to totally understand God. See in the book of Job God’s condemnation of all attempts of various speakers to explain God’s deeds and define what God does or does not do.

 

[Nenya Evenstar]

Ahhh . . . sorry, my bad. But I'm a little upset . . . I was hoping you'd disagree with me! I'm in the mood for a nice, thourough argument.

 

[Eriol]

Is Ilúvatar supposed to be kind? Other similar questions: Is Ilúvatar supposed to be just? Is He supposed to be true? (meaning -- not contradicting himself) Or, in an all-encompassing question, is Ilúvatar supposed to be good?

Now, this last question is not as simple as it sounds, since it really encompasses the others. A Good God must be loving, just, true. But if we try to define Good, we reach a dead end. What is Good? I recommend a very interesting book dealing with this question, "Principia Ethica" by G.E. Moore.

But in the end (as I see it) Good must be defined by God, and not the contrary. I mean, Good is Good because it is the will of God (and the will of God is God, it is part of his essence), rather than God being Good because he was following some higher power -- as we ourselves do when we perceive Good. Good is what God is, and the Goodness of other things is derived from God.

There is a hazy flavor to the word "kind". I use it mostly as "compassionate", meaning "wanting to relieve from pain". But what if pain is the lesser evil? Which one would God choose? Surely, pain. If you ask why is there any pain in the world, God answers, "because you abandoned me". And if you ask why did he allow that, he answers, "because free will is a greater good than the absence of pain".

I agreed with that way before I became a Christian. Free will is really the possibility of Good, and not only the possibility of Evil as some seem to assume. Pain is overrated as an evil. To be, to exist, is worth the pain. Imagine unfallen Adam in Eden, as a branch broke, fell upon his head, and hurt him (for branches broke in Eden, I suppose). Would he get mad at God because he was in pain? I think his pain would be another reason to thank God for having a head in which to feel pain, a free gift from God. Much better than not being and not having pain.

This is the main difference between Buddhism and Christianity. In a a-theistic Universe such as postulated by Buddhism (sure, there are gods, but no GOD) the goal is non-existence, to escape pain and suffering, which are seen as the greatest evil. In a theistic Universe such as Tolkien's creation Being is worth the pain -- it is the greater good, and the greater evil is noncompliance with God. This is one of the main philosophical assertions of Christianity: Being is Good, for it allows the greatest good to come true: communion with God. This is worth the pain.

 

[Nenya Evenstar]

Now that was a good, round, extremely fullfilling interpretation. Thanks, Eriol!

 

[Iluisa Olórin]

There was Eru, the One, who in Arda is called Ilúvatar; and he made first the Ainur, the Holy Ones, that were the offspring of his thought, and they were with him before aught else was made. ... each comprehended only that part of the mind of Ilúvatar from which he came.

Since Melkor was an offspring of his thought, does Ilúvatar not then have some inherent "evil" within him?

 

[Ithrynluin]

Originally posted by lhutton
Since Melkor was an offspring off his thought, does Ilúvatar not then have some inherent "evil" within him?

Or being all-mighty, he just has the power to make something evil, without being evil himself? Hmmmm...

 

[Eriol]

Or perhaps he had the power to make something that could become evil, having free will. Seemingly subtle but quite important differences. I'm sure I need not remind you of the many quotes to the tune of "He was not evil at the beginning, nothing is" sprinkled through the books.