The root of all Evil

If you are going to create beings endowed with free will and an individual personality - as opposed to a race of puppets with the same personality and no ability to choose to do anything but what their Creator wishes - you're going to run into the possibility of evil. There simply is no way that you can have both individual beings endowed with free will and no possibility of evil; that is, the rejection of God's all-perfect and all-good will.

Eru creates all the Ainur (and Maia and lesser spirits) as individuals and, furthermore, individuals who are capable of exercising their "God-given" free will in a way which might produce evil. To say that Eru could have created Melkor in such a way as to prevent him from being disobedient is simply to determine that He could have created him as a mindless puppet. Indeed, Eru could have done just that, but He chose to create beings capable of loving Him as He loved them. For that exchange of mutual love, these beings needed to have the free will to reject Eru - which, of course, Melkor and Sauron and other Spirits did.

The only thing that you have said that is defensible is that God created the worldknowing that evil would come to pass. He indeed did that. But He had no choice since He could not achieve what He wished from creation - sentient beings capable of bestowing love and of being loved - without the possibility, or more correctly, the inevitability of evil. However, evil notwithstanding, God chose love because He is Love. I believe that this was the case not only in the creation in which Tolkien himself lived, but in the "creation" he himself brought into being.

Mrs. Maggott said:

If you are going to create beings endowed with free will and an individual personality - as opposed to a race of puppets with the same personality and no ability to choose to do anything but what their Creator wishes - you're going to run into the possibility of evil.

Click to expand...

Just for clarification: is your post addressed to Helcaraxë or me?

Anyhoo — I assume that you are in defense of the definition of God as commonly defined in mainline Christianity: an omniscient omnibeneficent being.

There simply is no way that you can have both individual beings endowed with free will and no possibility of evil; that is, the rejection of God's all-perfect and all-good will.

Click to expand...

That depends on what characteristics you attribute to God. If you say that God (let's face it, I think we're really discussing God/Eru) can do anything, then God can set it up any way He wants to, including beings that, given free will, could have been created wise enough to choose to do good and shun evil in the first place and love God just exactly the way He wanted. After all, why subject man to his own fiendish nature as history has shown? But who can know what God has on His mind? I suppose one can second-guess his intent by reading what his actions in the Bible purportedly were. But which Bible? The Testaments? The Koran? The Baghavad Gita? What?

But if God, by instilling free will permits the possibility of evil, then one must say that that was His intention. And if that is so, then God regretting that He has done so (as comes out so many times in the OT) makes absolutely no sense, just as allowing Melkor (or the angel who becomes Satan) to turn bad (implying that it's possible for divine plans to go awry) just doesn't make logical sense if God is all-powerful.

Eru creates all the Ainur (and Maia and lesser spirits) as individuals and, furthermore, individuals who are capable of exercising their "God-given" free will in a way which might produce evil. To say that Eru could have created Melkor in such a way as to prevent him from being disobedient is simply to determine that He could have created him as a mindless puppet. Indeed, Eru could have done just that, but He chose to create beings capable of loving Him as He loved them. For that exchange of mutual love, these beings needed to have the free will to reject Eru - which, of course, Melkor and Sauron and other Spirits did.

Click to expand...

As I said, He could have done that and saved a lot of people a lot of agonized lives. Which brings up the question: Why would an all-perfect complete-in-Himself God have a need to create creatures who loved Him in the first place? What's the point? It appears that we have a lonely needy God. In fact it begins to appear that the God of the holy books is man's projection of himself writ large.

The only thing that you have said that is defensible is that God created the worldknowing that evil would come to pass. He indeed did that. But He had no choice since He could not achieve what He wished from creation - sentient beings capable of bestowing love and of being loved - without the possibility, or more correctly, the inevitability of evil.

Click to expand...

What a fascinating statement. From it I can only conclude that God either set limits, or that God is limited or both. And again, what's the point, the purpose?

However, evil notwithstanding, God chose love because He is Love. I believe that this was the case not only in the creation in which Tolkien himself lived, but in the "creation" he himself brought into being.

Click to expand...

The idea is fraught with difficulties. For me, the various versions of the God of the holy books are figments of man's imagination: Man created God in his own image; in the image of Man created he Him.

As far as I'm concerned, we are dealing with a man-created concept, not the real God who, if She exists is absolutely beyond man's ever getting near the faintest understanding of Her nature and purposes.

Barley

It is my understanding that it is a tenet of Christian faith (and possibly many others) that God created man in his own image. So we would be a lesser copy of God. Well then, how easy is it to truly understand any single human? Can you know all about any one of your fellow humans? Can you know all about you? It is a fact that even those I do know very well indeed still have many surprises for me in the course of time. As for knowing myself, that is even harder than learning about others. It is difficult for someone to look into the mirror with truly open eyes, it is often not a pretty sight.

Yet with so little knowledge there seem to be many, in all religions, that claim to know all about the attributes and purposes of a being that would so far exceed us that by comparison we would each be only a very tiny facet in the make-up of such a being.

For myself, not only do I not have the answers, in fact I am still looking for the questions.

originially posted by Mrs. Maggott
The only thing that you have said that is defensible is that God created the worldknowing that evil would come to pass. He indeed did that. But He had no choice since He could not achieve what He wished from creation - sentient beings capable of bestowing love and of being loved - without the possibility, or more correctly, the inevitability of evil. However, evil notwithstanding, God chose love because He is Love. I believe that this was the case not only in the creation in which Tolkien himself lived, but in the "creation" he himself brought into being.

Click to expand...

I found a very thought-provoking statement in a book from the "Prelude to Dune" series by Brian Herbert & Kevin J. Anderson called "House Harkonnen".

Nature commits no errors: right and wrong are human categories.

Click to expand...

Another (and more pertinent to this thread) way of writing this would be :

God commits no errors: Good and Evil are human categories.

You claim that God had "no choice since He could not achieve what he wished from creation" otherwise.

This makes Evil a necessity to the creation (with which view I would agree). From the point of view of the creator, that which is a necessity cannot by Evil. Creation must have a purpose, that of completion. To achieve this completion certain things have to be included. At least one of the requirements of creation achieving completion seems to be "Growth". For such growth to best occur requires the existence of obstacles and barriers. We, from our limited view-point would label these as Growth = Good and Obstacles/Barriers = Evil.

However, we have that Choice limited by many things and erroneously called "Free Will" and it is by our own personal choice we each walk the path of Growth or Barrier, or more often both.

I believe that it is a tenet of Christian faith (and possibly many others) that God created man in his own image.

Click to expand...

Yes and no, from the earliest beginnings of Culture mankind imagined divine beings in - more or less - human forms, as countless excavations of the Neolithic period indicate. And so did later and better developed cultures. It's just that in Genesis (1:26) we are explicitly told that God made humankind in his image and hence the situation is "reversed", but the effect is still the same: Mankind and the divine are "alike". (As an interesting sidenote God seems to use the plural to refer to himself: in our image).

God commits no errors: Good and Evil are human categories.
...
This makes Evil a necessity to the creation (with which view I would agree).

Click to expand...

This is not necessarily so. I rather think this is a product of only a few - if major - religions. I think it was Zoroaster/Zarathustra who came up first with this "ethical dualism" followed by the Judaeo-Christian tradition and Islam. But in other mythologies/religions, where one puts oneself in accord with the world and nature this is not mandatory. Only if nature and mankind is "fallen", the world is a mixture of good and evil where one has to identify with good and fight against the evil...

I think you missed the next sentence

From the point of view of the creator, that which is a necessity cannot by Evil.

Click to expand...

Which shows that what we perceive as "Evil" is not so to the creator. It is only in our limited view that such as good or evil exist. Therefore it is not necessary for nature or Mankind to be "Fallen" for what we perceive as "Evil" to be a necessity.

However, my re-wording of the quote from the book was not intended to be linked to all or indeed any religions. The first part of the post was a general comment while the second part which followed a quote from a prior post was an answer to that post. Perhaps I did not make this clear in the setting out of my post.

No, I had read that next sentence...

My post was basically in agreement with your observations, meant to throw some light at the same issues from a different angle.

In fact the only part of your previous post I do not basically agree with is the part that Creation must have a purpose.... In my take this is not a must...

Alas, the phrase "created in His image" suffers from poor translation or an unavailability of language to make the meaning clear. The old adage "the Greeks had a word for it" is quite true. Greek (the original translation) used the world "ikon" rather than "image" - the English almost-equivalent. It does not mean physical image, but rather that image of a creature capable of doing what we are doing right now: considering matters far beyond its immediate physical surroundings. Animals "think", but their thoughts do not encompass asking questions about the nature of life and the universe. Man alone has that ability. Man alone is able to even acknowledge the concept of God. Might animals "recognize" God? Quite possibly. Our domestic pets recognize us although we are different from them. However, do animals sit around wondering what happens after death? Or do they "anticipate" or "question" the universe around them? No. Only "man" has that ability and as such, he has been created in the "image" of his Creator.

Evil is not a "category" but a choice and "nature" certainly does make "mistakes". I have a 34 year old spina bifida son. Something happened 15 days after his conception that made him a life-long cripple. In the ordinary nature of things, this shouldn't have happened - but it did. Nature makes "mistakes" all the time; God doesn't. He brought Creation into existence knowing that we would fall and such "mistakes" would be the natural consequence of that fall. He redeemed us and nature, but the full fruition of that redemption is yet to come. When it does, then you will be able to say with certainty that there will be no more "mistakes" just as there will be no more "evil".

Mrs. Maggott said:

Alas, the phrase "created in His image" suffers from poor translation or an unavailability of language to make the meaning clear.

Click to expand...

The original hebrew word {dem-ooth} (in lack of time to use the unicode characters) is said to mean "likeness, similitude, like, manner, fashion", so I basically agree we may not have a word of exactly the same meaning as the original, but I think the translation comes pretty close.

In fact I think that this was the basic intention of the creation myth in Genesis as well as in the other Creation myths of the era, to point out that Mankind and the Divine are at least alike, if not identical or transcendent to some degree....

Walter, thank you for the clarification. It seems that I misread your post not the other way around.

In fact the only part of your previous post I do not basically agree with is the part that Creation must have a purpose.... In my take this is not a must...

Click to expand...

I am sorry, you are quite correct. "Must" was a totaly incorrect term to use. I should have said that "Creation Seems to have a purpose, that of completion".

Mrs. M. When I posted the quote about nature it was to show where idea came from for my Re-writing to the version citing God. I did not try to claim that Nature is infalable.

As for the my use of "Image" in my post, I was not refering to "Physical Attributes" but to That which seems to set us apart from other life forms on this planet. Any physical similarity to a god is totaly unknown and, while we are alive, unknowable.

Nature makes "mistakes" all the time; God doesn't. He brought Creation into existence knowing that we would fall and such "mistakes" would be the natural consequence of that fall. He redeemed us and nature, but the full fruition of that redemption is yet to come. When it does, then you will be able to say with certainty that there will be no more "mistakes" just as there will be no more "evil".

Click to expand...

I agree with you about Nature. However, either that which we call Evil is not a mistake and therefore part of the Creation or god makes mistakes.

Mrs. Maggott said:

Evil is not a "category" but a choice and "nature" certainly does make "mistakes". I have a 34 year old spina bifida son. Something happened 15 days after his conception that made him a life-long cripple. In the ordinary nature of things, this shouldn't have happened - but it did. Nature makes "mistakes" all the time; God doesn't.

Click to expand...

First, I am sorry to hear of your son's situation. I can't imagine anything much more difficult and challenging to all of you.

When you say that nature makes mistakes and God doesn't, I submit that the entire concept comes from basic and unspoken assumptions coming out of the nature of Christian (and also Jewish and Islamic) doctrine:

1. God is separate from his Creation.
2. God is perfect, but deliberately made an imperfect creation for his own purposes.
3. Heaven and Hell are eternal and permanent. There will be an eventual resurrection and judgement of all souls.

Buddhism and Hinduism (which philosophies I hold to be at least as valid/invalid as Western religions) have other, fundamentally different assumptions, to wit:

1. Whatever is, is God. (Obviously, the first two items are not a part of Buddhism)
2. All things happen according to God's plan; there are no mistakes.
3. Karma and reincarnation exist for the eventual perfection of each soul, at which point the soul will achieve Realization of the Truth and be reabsorbed back into God.
4. Knows each soul because God IS each soul and experiences whatever happens to each soul simultaneously.

If a person believes in the so-called divine truth of some particular religion or path, it is because

1. He was brought up to believe it and doesn't question it
2. It appeals to his temperament, and so he aligns himself with it.

To say that any one religion is the truth and the others are in error is as ridiculous as saying that there is only one true topping for a pizza, or that there is only one true flavor of ice cream. It is a matter of personal choice or indoctrination, and many times simply a lack of knowledge of other paths that determine our religious allegiances and alliances.

Each religion supplies its own answers to the perennial question, each has its own outlook with its own system of logic — and each has its own supply of truth, wisdom, myth and nonsense.

And as someone implied (and as I have said all along), the biggest conceit of all (based on ancient logic) is to think that a human being is capable of understanding What's Really Going On Here.

Barley

PS — Why do I suddenly have the most STOMACH-CHURNING combination of vivid blue and sick greens on my "blues" skin today???!! I hope someone will change it back ASAP!