Round 6, Guild of Outcasts vs. Guild of Tolkienologists [Archive]

Eriol

08-10-2003, 04:42 PM

Well, I have two nice trees in my house, and I judge the length of days by their light. So my days are a little bit longer than yours, I think.

;)

In fact, it took a while to get confirmation from my teammates about the side we'd argue. Blame Baragund :D.

Here we go:

***

Men are evil.

A simple way to state a very complex concept; and I’m looking forward to a great debate about this.

To state that men are evil, we have to define “evil” somehow; and it does not seem appropriate to give a relativistic definition of evil. To Orcs and Gollum, Elves were evil; if we follow such a hazy definition (which amounts to saying “evil is what I don’t approve of”; or perhaps “what is against our interests”), then the concept of evil becomes useless, and the question, meaningless. For by accepting a relativistic defintion of evil, we are really saying that men, as a race, are sometimes evil, and sometimes not; and both sides of the debate would be right. Evil must be evil perceived by someone.

Who then will judge whether men as a race are evil? The Elves? Surely not; this would be grossly unfair. The Valar? But they admittedly do not know a lot about men. Morgoth? But he is Evil incarnate; his judgment is therefore, by definition, evil.

Surely the best judge of mankind is Eru Ilúvatar. And this is fitting; for in Arda, as in any monotheistic universe, good is defined as the will of God; the will of Ilúvatar. What Ilúvatar wills is, by definition, good and correct. And we then have a simple way to ascertain who is evil and who is not evil; we look at who is following Eru’s wishes, and at who is refusing to follow these wishes.

This, in a nutshell, is the Tolkienologists’ claim; that men, as a race, are evil because they often refused to follow Ilúvatar’s wishes; indeed, almost constantly. Note that this statement does not address particular individuals, but the race as a whole.

The Athrabeth has plenty of quotes to that effect; unfortunately, I only have my pocket Sil here. Let’s take a look at it for some quotes.

The Published Silmarillion, Of the Beginning of Days

But Ilúvatar knew that Men, being set amid the turmoils of the powers of the world, would stray often, and he said: ‘These too in their time shall find out that all that they do redounds at the end only to the glory of my work.’ Yet the Elves believe that Men are often a grief to Manwë, who knows most of the mind of Ilúvatar; for it seems to the Elves that Men resemble Melkor most of all the Ainur, although he has ever feared and hated them, even those that served him.

The emphasis is mine, because “These too” is comparing Men with Melkor, himself; Men, just as Melkor, would learn that their efforts to avoid Eru’s wishes would fail in the end of time.

A very clear quote, in my opinion.

Now, an allusion to the events discussed in the Athrabeth:

The Published Silmarillion, Of the Coming of Men into the West

But when he [Felagund] quetioned him concerning the arising of Men and their journeys, Bëor would say little, for the fathers of his people had told few tales of their past and a silence had fallen upon their memory. ‘A darkness lies behind us,’ Bëor said.

Note that this quote (and other quotes from that chapter) address the “Darkness” behind Men as an issue of ALL men; not just the Edain, the men who contacted the Elves. This is also a theme from the Athrabeth.

The Published Silmarillion, Akallabêth

It is said by the Eldar that Men came into the world in the time of the Shadow of Morgoth, and they fell swiftly under his dominion; for he sent his emissaries among them, and they listened to his evil and cunning words, and they worshipped the Darkness and yet feared it.

Of course, the whole tale of the Numenóreans is a tale of rebellion against Ilúvatar’s design.

This is as succinct as I can be in such a great question. There is more to come, from Tolkienologists and Outcasts; but the show is finally beginning.

:)

Nóm

08-10-2003, 06:01 PM

Men were inherently good because their fear/spirits came directly from Eru who did not create evil beings, and it is also evident that men were inherently good because 'evil men' is a distinction from 'men' that would not exist if all men were evil, and also by the fact that men are turned to evil - implying those evil men were not always so.

Tolkien does speak of 'evil men' and of men being turned to evil. If one is inherently evil then he can not be turned to evil, he already was evil! And in speaking of 'evil men' that is contasting them with Men in general, it is differentiating of them from the whole. The criteria for this distinction is 'evil'... this means that the whole of them, the general group of Men were not 'evil'. If they were there would be no distiction

Manwe is the only being in Arda said to be free of evil. Men were not without evil... they can not have been since even their hroar came from the marred fabric of Arda. The Melkor ingedient was present in them. However, good was the dominant trait of men, and good is was the fear of men when they entered the world, and the fear is all they take with them when they leave Arda. They were set against the chances of the world to triumph over evil and make music before Iluvatar with the Ainur in the end when they see the revealing of Iluvatar's purpose. This Melkor ingredient hindered men, and it is a cause of men having an incination to evil... but it is just that, an inclination to evil, not evil. Men can become evil, but are not so inherently.

The darkness behind men, that shadow that they speak of which is told about in more detail in the Tale of Adanel that Andreth tells Finrod, was the falling of men into Morgoth Worship. That was the result of their inclination to evil, not inherent evil. Many men did repent of this and move west. The Edain. Many Edain went on to be the Numenoreans who fell, but not all of them died. In the Third Age we eventually have a world were men in the East and South were under the sway of Sauron, again this was because of inclination to evil. The men of the west, the Rohirrim, Gondians... these men were not evil because they had not been won over to it. Had men been inherently evil there would not have been good men like Aragorn, or do you think Aragorn was evil?

That men fell to Morgoth worship, also proves that men on the whole can not have been evil from the start, though I don't know if you are claiming that they were.

If beings could be created evil then Melkor would not have had to win some of the other Ainur over, and later some more of the Maiar. These Maiar were, like men, not inherently evil but won over to evil and many did not repent. Sauron tried to, but did not succeed. Had he been inherently evil he would never have tried to repent. There would have been evil beings among the Ainur from day one. But there was not evil beings among them, unless you believe it was Melkor, but we can even see that Melkor was not evil in the beginning. Iluvatar did not create evil, he created good that evil came of, perhaps as a result of some flaw in his beings, but that flaw was not evil, it was a thing which turned beings to do evil things. Melkor fell into evil, and did become pure evil but was not so in the beginning.

A man may be turned to do evil things, and may even turn to pure evil through Morgoth worship, but the race of Men is not evil. The child of an evil man will not be born evil. The fear of all beings come from god, the spirits are therefore not inherently evil because Iluvatar does not (and indeed by your definition - CAN NOT) create, or even do, evil.

Evil among men is nothing more then the perversion of individuals, which happens as a result of a flaw in men which leaves them open to turning evil.

Men refusing Iluvatar is done out the same type of flaws which turned Melkor to evil... pride, jealousy, shame, lust, envy... these are traits that lead to evil. Melkor like some men, become evil, but inherently? Not so.

But speaking of Eru's wishes... we rarely get told what they are.

And as you point out in that quote... according to Eru men 'shall find out that all that they do redounds at the end only to the glory of my work.' As part of his plan, any evil they do contibutes to the glory of Eru's work, so it is therefore not really against Eru at all, but is only seemingly against Eru. In truth it is part of his great design and as such not evil by your definition which states that evil = against Eru. So it looks like going against Eru's wishes is one of Eru's wishes... at least after Melkor went evil.

Eriol

08-10-2003, 06:57 PM

Originally posted by Nóm
Men were inherently good because their fear/spirits came directly from Eru who did not create evil beings, and it is also evident that men were inherently good because 'evil men' is a distinction from 'men' that would not exist if all men were evil, and also by the fact that men are turned to evil - implying those evil men were not always so.

There is a difference between "created evil" and "inherently evil". Something can be greated good and later become inherently evil. Melkor is the prime example. We are not claiming that men were created evil; we are claiming that "in the context of Tolkien's legendarium", i.e., taking into account all that happened in the history of Arda (and not only the original men, before Morgoth messed with them), men are evil.

Your line of reasoning would lead us to conclude that not even Melkor is "inherently evil", for he was not "created evil". I think that's unreasonable.

Tolkien does speak of 'evil men' and of men being turned to evil. If one is inherently evil then he can not be turned to evil, he already was evil! And in speaking of 'evil men' that is contasting them with Men in general, it is differentiating of them from the whole. The criteria for this distinction is 'evil'... this means that the whole of them, the general group of Men were not 'evil'. If they were there would be no distiction.

Tolkien also speaks of "evil Maiar", and "evil Vala". Are you claiming that those beings were not inherently evil? Look at this:

Letter 153

Sauron was of course not 'evil' in origin. He was a 'spirit' corrupted by the Prime Dark Lord (the Prime sub-creative Rebel) Morgoth. He was given an opportunity of repentance, when Morgoth was overcome, but could not face the humiliation of recantation, and suing for pardon, and so his temporary turn to good and 'benevolence' ended in a greater relapse, until he became the main representative of Evil of later ages.

So, if we accept your reasoning, Sauron, "the main representative of Evil of later ages", is not inherently evil!

Men can become evil, but are not so inherently.

Taking your reasoning, if they are created good, they could not become evil; if I understood you correctly. It all stems from this point -- is "inherently evil" and "created evil" the same thing? The Tolkienologists' position is that they are not the same thing; that a being can be created good and become inherently evil later. And to prove our case we look at Melkor, Sauron, and other beings who are unquestionably "inherently evil". They were all created good; and yet they became, later, inherently evil. The same happened with men.

Had men been inherently evil there would not have been good men like Aragorn, or do you think Aragorn was evil?

If they were inherently good there would not have been evil men like the Witch-King, or do you think that the Witch-King was good?

;)

Really, calling on individual examples won't further any side of the debate; and if we decided to "make a poll" and see whether there were more evil men or good men, the evil side would clearly win. We have to look at the race as a whole; and yes, looking at the race as a whole, Aragorn did belong to a race which was inherently evil. Exceptions don't break the rule. This question is more subtle than "Is there any good men in Arda?" or "Is there any evil men in Arda?".

"Is the race of men inherently evil?", that's the question.

If we (Tolkienologists) can show that:

Men, as a race, disobeyed Eru's wishes consistently throughout history; AND

This trait was present since Morgoth's corruption of them(Athrabeth);AND

This trait was inheritable;

I think that the conclusion that the race of men is inherently evil -- after they were messed with by Morgoth -- is inevitable.

That men fell to Morgoth worship, also proves that men on the whole can not have been evil from the start, though I don't know if you are claiming that they were.

We are not claiming that; we are claiming that after they fell to Morgoth worship, they (all of them, including the Edain) became inherently evil. Individuals could escape their stain, now imprinted in their nature, through personal power; but the stain was there. They would never again be "pure from birth", they would have to fight, against their own selves, to attain goodness.

If beings could be created evil then Melkor would not have had to win some of the other Ainur over, and later some more of the Maiar. These Maiar were, like men, not inherently evil but won over to evil and many did not repent. Sauron tried to, but did not succeed. Had he been inherently evil he would never have tried to repent.

Do you mean that Sauron in the Third Age is not inherently evil? We agree that he was not created evil; but we think that he can become inherently evil, and that he did in fact. Why, if Tolkien calls him "the main representative of Evil in later ages", I don't see how you can claim he is not inherently evil without rendering the expression "inherently evil" meaningless. If Sauron is not inherently evil, then baragund asked us a mighty weird question.

But speaking of Eru's wishes... we rarely get told what they are.

We get told that men would go against them, no matter what they were precisely, in that quote. And of course the tale of Númenor is a big story of "men going against Eru's wishes".

And as you point out in that quote... according to Eru men 'shall find out that all that they do redounds at the end only to the glory of my work.' As part of his plan, any evil they do contibutes to the glory of Eru's work, so it is therefore not really against Eru at all, but is only seemingly against Eru. In truth it is part of his great design and as such not evil by your definition which states that evil = against Eru. So it looks like going against Eru's wishes is one of Eru's wishes... at least after Melkor went evil.

And this reasoning again absolves Melkor and Sauron. If we do that, no one is evil and we might as well give up the debate, as a draw -- for no one is good either. If everybody is a puppet of Eru, good and evil have no meaning.

If, on the other hand, we accept free will, we see that Melkor and Sauron and other bad guys, using their free will, went against Eru's wishes; and therefore became evil. And we see also that men worshipped Morgoth, and therefore became evil; and we see this stain upon their natures, imprinted from birth in later generations (i.e. inheritable, not learned), is manifested throughout the history of Arda.

Nóm

08-10-2003, 07:48 PM

Those things are not according to my reasoning, and I suspect you know it.

There is a difference between "created evil" and "inherently evil". Something can be greated good and later become inherently evil.

I did not say both of those things were the same. I admitted in my post that men can turn to evil, even pure evil through Morgoth worship. Those individual would of course become inherently evil. However those individuals who were turned to evil are not representing the entire race of men. They are the fallen among men, just as there was fallen ones among the Ainur.

Your line of reasoning would lead us to conclude that not even Melkor is "inherently evil", for he was not "created evil". I think that's unreasonable.
No my line of reasoning would not say that and again I know you know that, you will not fool me.

Men were created good, and not all men are turned to evil. Men on the whole are therefore not evil, only vulnerable to falling into evil... then those individuals are inherently evil, but not the race.

Tolkien also speaks of "evil Maiar", and "evil Vala". Are you claiming that those beings were not inherently evil?

No, I claim they were not originally evil. But speaking of reasoning - According to GoT's reasoning, all the Ainur were evil. Right? So what if the percentage of Ainur who fell to evil is smaller than the percentage of men, the fact remains that it was a percentage of each race that turned to evil, and neither race on the whole was inherently evil.

So, if we accept your reasoning, Sauron, "the main representative of Evil of later ages", is not inherently evil!

As I pointed out above, that is not true. Sauron was inherently evil... does this mean the other Ainur were? No.

Taking your reasoning, if they are created good, they could not become evil; if I understood you correctly. It all stems from this point -- is "inherently evil" and "created evil" the same thing? The Tolkienologists' position is that they are not the same thing; that a being can be created good and become inherently evil later. And to prove our case we look at Melkor, Sauron, and other beings who are unquestionably "inherently evil". They were all created good; and yet they became, later, inherently evil. The same happened with men.

Nay, the same thing happend with some men.

My point about Eru creating men good is that each man born has a spirit directly from Eru, and each man is therefore born good. Since only some of all these good beings fall to evil, and become inherently evil, the race on the whole remains good.

If they were inherently good there would not have been evil men like the Witch-King, or do you think that the Witch-King was good?
Yes there would be evil men like the Witch-King, as I fully admitted in my opening post that some men are turned to evil. My post said good beings can fall to evil. I was asking GoT about Aragorn as an example which demonstarted a principal. Can a thing inherently evil become good? You either saw the implications of my Aragorn question and are using this as a tactic to avoid answering, or you failed to see the point, so I stated it now.

And this reasoning again absolves Melkor and Sauron. If we do that, no one is evil and we might as well give up the debate, as a draw -- for no one is good either. If everybody is a puppet of Eru, good and evil have no meaning.

It does not because I specified that this was after Melkor fell to evil. So Melkor is exempt from it.

I agree it would make the debate useless... but that does not make it unreasonable. It remains that if evil = against Eru, and if it was Eru's plan (at least after Melkor fell) that some go against him, then they were not truly going agaist him but only seemed to. I am not using this as a reason to further GoO's side but against GoT.

This question is more subtle than "Is there any good men in Arda?" or "Is there any evil men in Arda?".

It is really? I don't think my little mind can handle it. :rolleyes:

Eriol

08-10-2003, 08:19 PM

Originally posted by Nóm
Those things are not according to my reasoning, and I suspect you know it

No my line of reasoning would not say that and again I know you know that, you will not fool me.

My little mind (thanks for the sarcastic smiley there :D) interprets your next-to-last post as equating "created evil" with "inherently evil". Sorry about that. Can you explain the difference between them according to your reasoning, then?

The way to make your position clear is by answering a simple question: Is Morgoth inherently evil?

No, I claim they were not originally evil. But speaking of reasoning - According to GoT's reasoning, all the Ainur were evil. Right?

?? Where did we say that? We were following your reasoning, not ours.

As I pointed out above, that is not true. Sauron was inherently evil... does this mean the other Ainur were? No.

Luckily we never claimed it.

My point about Eru creating men good is that each man born has a spirit directly from Eru, and each man is therefore born good. Since only some of all these good beings fall to evil, and become inherently evil, the race on the whole remains good.

And my point is that this reasoning can be applied to evil Ainur as well. And therefore all beings who disobeyed Eru are being evil, If you accept that the evil Ainur are evil. And we see in the Athrabeth that ALL men worshipped Morgoth; and this shows that your statement:

... admitted in my post that men can turn to evil, even pure evil through Morgoth worship.

means, in fact, that men are evil. My point is that ALL men fell to evil by worshipping Morgoth, as explained in the Athrabeth. There are no "unfallen men" in Middle-Earth after that period. If you accept, as it seems by your statement, that Morgoth worship makes men evil, how can you claim that men are not evil?

Yes there would be evil men like the Witch-King, as I fully admitted in my opening post that some men are turned to evil. My post said good beings can fall to evil. I was asking GoT about Aragorn as an example which demonstarted a principal. Can a thing inherently evil become good? You either saw the implications of my Aragorn question and are using this as a tactic to avoid answering, or you failed to see the point, so I stated it now.

I rarely use "tactics", as you enjoy implying, Nóm; this implying is a tactic in itself, of course. I just turned your question back to you, and I'll do it again: Can a thing inherently good become evil? Why can't you see that your example cuts both ways?

It does not because I specified that this was after Melkor fell to evil. So Melkor is exempt from it.

Any reason for this specification? Does history begin only after Melkor's fall? It seems so, according to Nóm. Was not Melkor created good, just as men? Well, if you will frame the debate by establishing a starting point with no reason for it, then I'll simply have to use Sauron as an example instead of Melkor.

Is Sauron inherently evil?

I agree it would make the debate useless... but that does not make it unreasonable. It remains that if evil = against Eru, and if it was Eru's plan (at least after Melkor fell) that some go against him, then they were not truly going agaist him but only seemed to. I am not using this as a reason to further GoO's side but against GoT.

How could you go against GoT without furthering GoO? You seem to think that abolishing free will would eliminate evil, but not good. Why? Without free will there is neither good nor evil. You are assuming (without grounds) that Eru's foreknowledge of evil means that evil was in Eru's plan. Can you explain why is this so?

Eriol

08-10-2003, 08:52 PM

Sorry for the double post, I got interrupted there :(.

This is the first sentence of Nóm in the debate:

Men were inherently good because their fear/spirits came directly from Eru who did not create evil beings...

I think my little mind can be forgiven for thinking that she was thinking that "inherently evil" and "created evil" are the same, since she claims that men are inherently good because they were created good. What is the relationship between these two concepts? I see none; Nóm evidently sees some. I'm sure of one thing, though; beings who were created good can become inherently evil, we have several examples of that, from Melkor to the Balrogs... and men.

I'll try to post some very strong quotes supporting our side from the Athrabeth in my next contribution.

Nóm

08-10-2003, 10:01 PM

Originally posted by Eriol
[B]My little mind (thanks for the sarcastic smiley there :D) interprets your next-to-last post as equating "created evil" with "inherently evil". Sorry about that. Can you explain the difference between them according to your reasoning, then?
Inherently evil man would be a man who is evil, created evil would be a man who was evil when he came into existance.

The way to make your position clear is by answering a simple question: Is Morgoth inherently evil?
Yes

No, I claim they were not originally evil. But speaking of reasoning - According to GoT's reasoning, all the Ainur were evil. Right?
?? Where did we say that? We were following your reasoning, not ours.

Not by GoO reasoning. By our reasoning the Ainur were not inherently evil, but some individuals fell into being evil.

As I pointed out above, that is not true. Sauron was inherently evil... does this mean the other Ainur were? No.
Luckily we never claimed it.
No you didn't, but it demonstrates that GoO understands that individuals within a race may be inherently evil while the race on the whole is not.

My point about Eru creating men good is that each man born has a spirit directly from Eru, and each man is therefore born good. Since only some of all these good beings fall to evil, and become inherently evil, the race on the whole remains good.
And my point is that this reasoning can be applied to evil Ainur as well....
Of course it can, who said it couldn't?

And therefore all beings who disobeyed Eru are being evil, If you accept that the evil Ainur are evil. And we see in the Athrabeth that ALL men worshipped Morgoth; and this shows that your statement:
... admitted in my post that men can turn to evil, even pure evil through Morgoth worship.
means, in fact, that men are evil. My point is that ALL men fell to evil by worshipping Morgoth, as explained in the Athrabeth. There are no "unfallen men" in Middle-Earth after that period. If you accept, as it seems by your statement, that Morgoth worship makes men evil, how can you claim that men are not evil?

At a point in time all men fell to Morgoth worship. They did not all remain so forever.

Morgoth worshipping men = evil

Once a man repents of this Morgoth worship (that is taking Morgoth as god) and sees Morgoth for what he really is, a liar and an evil under Iluvatar, that man ceases to be evil.

So while some men fall into evil, the race on the whole is not inherently evil.

I rarely use "tactics", as you enjoy implying, Nóm; this implying is a tactic in itself, of course. I just turned your question back to you, and I'll do it again: Can a thing inherently good become evil? Why can't you see that your example cuts both ways?
I did not 'imply' it was a tactic on your part. I said outright that either was one, or you failed to understand the question. Why didn't you answer the question, anyhow?

You did not turn my question back on me.

My question amounted to this: Can a being inherently evil become good?

Yours amounted to this: Do you think an evil being can not belong to a good race? This has implications that we never claimed. We admitted in our opening that an evil being can belong to a good race. So you asking that question was of no real use, so why did you ask it?

That was not a turn back, but a twisting or a tactic or a failure for some unknown reason to answer the question GoO asked.

Why can't I see it cuts both ways? But it does not, the question can not be turned back as you did without the meaning being changed drasticly. I answered the question that you 'turned back', in my last post. So why are you 'doing it again'??

Any reason for this specification? Does history begin only after Melkor's fall? It seems so, according to Nóm. Was not Melkor created good, just as men? Well, if you will frame the debate by establishing a starting point with no reason for it, then I'll simply have to use Sauron as an example instead of Melkor.
Because Melkor was the root of evil, and cause of the marring and the fall of men, and the consequent inclination to evil that men were to have, his fall introduced a whole new element into the music, therefore when this happend Iluvatar's designs were changed, unless you believe Iluvatar knew from the start that Melkor would turn evil... and you very well might. I do not though, so according to my belief this stands up.

Is Sauron inherently evil?
yes

How could you go against GoT without furthering GoO?
Furthering GoO would be caused by going against GoT, but the direct purpose was to go against GoT.

You seem to think that abolishing free will would eliminate evil, but not good. Why? Without free will there is neither good nor evil.
I don't know anything about abolishing freewill.
You are assuming (without grounds) that Eru's foreknowledge of evil means that evil was in Eru's plan. Can you explain why is this so?
Bloody hell!
Eru knew Melkor was evil and he let him into the world knowing what would happen as a result of that. If this does not mean evil was in accordance with his plans, I don't know what could!

This is the first sentence of Nóm in the debate:

Men were inherently good because their fear/spirits came directly from Eru who did not create evil beings...

I think my little mind can be forgiven for thinking that she was thinking that "inherently evil" and "created evil" are the same, since she claims that men are inherently good because they were created good. What is the relationship between these two concepts? I see none; Nóm evidently sees some. I'm sure of one thing, though; beings who were created good can become inherently evil, we have several examples of that, from Melkor to the Balrogs... and men.
That was not the first sentence of my post. This was: Men were inherently good because their fear/spirits came directly from Eru who did not create evil beings, and it is also evident that men were inherently good because 'evil men' is a distinction from 'men' that would not exist if all men were evil, and also by the fact that men are turned to evil - implying those evil men were not always so.

That bit you quoted me on was not alone the reason they were not evil, it is when taken with the rest of the sentence the reason that they were not evil. But you can pick at my poor wording there all you want, but I think my meaning was made in clear when I expanded on that stuff in the body of my post. Nowhere in it did I say that because men where created good they are inherently good.

And in my second post I made sure to try to clear this up, when I posted this: My point about Eru creating men good is that each man born has a spirit directly from Eru, and each man is therefore born good. Since only some of all these good beings fall to evil, and become inherently evil, the race on the whole remains good.

See? The point is that each man comes into the world direct from Eru and is therefore good unless he is turns to evil... Morgoth worship, or otherwise blasphemous to Iluvatar... denying the existance of Eru.

Manveru

08-10-2003, 11:39 PM

Wow... my first debate and I?ve got a headache already;)
But let?s get to the point...
Originally posted by Nom:
Men were inherently good because their fear/spirits came directly from Eru who did not create evil beings...
Originally posted by Nom:
However, good was the dominant trait of men, and good is was the fear of men when they entered the world, and the fear is all they take with them when they leave Arda.
So if Men had ?good fear? from the beginning as you said and they became evil during their existence in Arda, it doesn?t matter, because their fear are good... and they leave Middle-earth being ?good? with ?good? fear only? So all ?efforts? of such men as already mentioned Witch-king are turn to naught in the end?

And with that ?good was the dominant trait of men? I?m little confused. If they were so ?good?, why then they turned into Morgoth?s worship so easily? And why did they let the Downfall of Numenor happen?
from The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien: Letter 131:
The Downfall is partly the result of an inner weakness in Men ? consequent, if you will, upon the first Fall (unrecorded in these tales), repented but not finally healed.
Emphasis added;)

baragund

08-11-2003, 05:32 AM

Hee, Hee...

This is probably one of those things we could bat around for seven months, never mind seven days. But we only have seven days.

Eriol fired the first salvo at around 10:42 AM Eastern Standard Time on Aug. 10. I like to round things off so I'll give all of you until 12:00 noon EST on Aug. 17.

By the way, great stuff so far!!

Eriol

08-11-2003, 05:48 AM

Thanks baragund... I see now the reason for your Deep Thoughts.

;)

Originally posted by Nóm
Inherently evil man would be a man who is evil, created evil would be a man who was evil when he came into existance

So, I think we both agree that Melkor was not created evil. Since you answered "yes" to the questions about Morgoth and Sauron, that's settled: beings which were created good can become inherently evil -- right?

At a point in time all men fell to Morgoth worship. They did not all remain so forever.

Morgoth worshipping men = evil

Once a man repents of this Morgoth worship (that is taking Morgoth as god) and sees Morgoth for what he really is, a liar and an evil under Iluvatar, that man ceases to be evil.

So while some men fall into evil, the race on the whole is not inherently evil.

So, it seems your point is that all men were once evil, but that as soon as they repent, they revert to their good (created) nature and are not evil anymore. But this goes against the several mentions of the "tainted" nature of men; Manveru just posted one, and here is another:

Commentary on Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth, HOME X

Melkor was not just a local Evil on Earth, nor a Guardian Angel on Earth who had gone wrong: he was the Spirit of Evil, arising even before the making of Eä. His attempt to dominate the structure of Eä, and of Arda in particular, and alter the designs of Eru (which governed all the operations of the faithful Valar), had introduced evil, or a tendency to aberration from the design, into all the physical matter of Arda. It was for this reason, no doubt, that he had been totally successful with Men, but only partially so with Elves (who remained as a people 'unfallen').

It seems as if JRRT wrote this for me :D.

We see here Tolkien claiming that the Spirit of Evil had been totally successful with Men; and he even goes so far as to compare Men with Elves and claim that Elves, as a people, remained "unfallen". I think it is clear from that quote that Men, as a people, were fallen.

I did not 'imply' it was a tactic on your part. I said outright that either was one, or you failed to understand the question. Why didn't you answer the question, anyhow?

Good. Then we can skip the discussion on tactics and get to the meat of the matter. I'll answer your question in a moment.

You did not turn my question back on me.

My question amounted to this: Can a being inherently evil become good?

Yours amounted to this: Do you think an evil being can not belong to a good race? This has implications that we never claimed. We admitted in our opening that an evil being can belong to a good race. So you asking that question was of no real use, so why did you ask it?

That was not a turn back, but a twisting or a tactic or a failure for some unknown reason to answer the question GoO asked.

Well, I don't see why the GoO question, worded like this:

"Can a being inherently evil become good?"

amounts to

"Can a being inherently evil become good?"

While the GoT question, worded like this:

"Can a being inherently good become evil?"

amounts to something completely different. (by the way, both your question and ours used "thing" instead of "being"; not a big deal, I guess).

I would think that the GoT and the GoO questions, being similarly worded, amounted to similar things.

Now for the answer to the question: Yes, an inherently evil being can become good, if it is endowed with free will.

Why can't I see it cuts both ways? But it does not, the question can not be turned back as you did without the meaning being changed drasticly. I answered the question that you 'turned back', in my last post. So why are you 'doing it again'??

Why is the meaning changed so dramatically? Why can't our question mean what the words say? I'm really puzzled at this. In the meantime, Can a being inherently good become evil?

Because Melkor was the root of evil, and cause of the marring and the fall of men, and the consequent inclination to evil that men were to have, his fall introduced a whole new element into the music, therefore when this happend Iluvatar's designs were changed, unless you believe Iluvatar knew from the start that Melkor would turn evil... and you very well might. I do not though, so according to my belief this stands up.

I don't know anything about abolishing freewill.

Bloody hell!
Eru knew Melkor was evil and he let him into the world knowing what would happen as a result of that. If this does not mean evil was in accordance with his plans, I don't know what could!

It also means abolishing free will. If Melkor is a puppet, following Eru's plans unwittingly, then he has no free will. You surely agree that Melkor thought he was going against Eru, right? So, if he is just a deluded guy who is really doing Eru's job, then he has no free will.

As for the question in the second paragraph, no, it does not mean evil was in accordance with Eru's plans; because foreknowledge does not mean foreplanning. And by the way, you just said (in the next-to-last quote) that you think that Eru did not know from the start that Melkor would turn evil; in other words, you don't believe in Eru's foreknowledge. So your question, involving "Eru knowing that Melkor was evil and letting him into the world", is strange. Perhaps you asked it because you think that I believe in Eru's absolute foreknowledge, and you are right in that; but even with Eru's foreknowledge, there is no problem, unless you assume that foreknowledge is equal to foreplanning.

Wow, writing on this matter is tough.

;)

An example to explain what I mean by "foreknowledge is not foreplanning": Gandalf knew that Gollum would play a part in the destruction of the Ring, but he was greatly alarmed when he knew that Gollum was the guide of Frodo, and was taking him to Cirith Ungol. By the same token, Eru could know that Melkor would turn evil and yet be alarmed (i.e. disapprove) by it. It is part of the "free will package" that the possibility of both good and evil is opened; if Eru had stopped Melkor from the start, he would have obedient puppets, not loving creatures.

Eru thinks that loving creatures are better than obedient puppets, and evil is worth the price. That's the answer to the "if that is not going according to Eru's plan, I don't know what is!" comment.

And in my second post I made sure to try to clear this up, when I posted this: My point about Eru creating men good is that each man born has a spirit directly from Eru, and each man is therefore born good. Since only some of all these good beings fall to evil, and become inherently evil, the race on the whole remains good.

The problem is that ALL men worshipped Morgoth, and fell to evil, as the quotes show; and that the stain remained with them even after they repented, as the quotes also show. I'm glad we can forget about the "created good" matter with your answers to the question of Melkor and Sauron, both were created good and became evil. But the question remains: are men as a race tainted by the evil that came from Morgoth worship? The quotes seem to support the "yes".

See? The point is that each man comes into the world direct from Eru and is therefore good unless he is turns to evil... Morgoth worship, or otherwise blasphemous to Iluvatar... denying the existance of Eru.

Exactly. And all men did that. The evil became ingrained in their natures, transmitted hereditarily, in other words, inherent. I recall the quote Manveru provided as well as the quote from the Athrabeth given on this post; here's another telling quote, from the end of the Tale of Adanel:

But it is told that there were a few that escaped us, and went away into far countries, fleeing from the shadow. Yet they did not escape the anger of the Voice; for they had built the House and bowed down in it. And they came at last to the land's end and the shores of the impassable water; and behold! the Enemy was there before them.

This quote is talking about the Edain, the men who repented from Morgoth worship and called him The Enemy. And even so they did NOT escape the anger of the Voice (which is Eru), for they had built a House for Morgoth worship and bowed to Morgoth.

I believe the quotes we have offered are very strong.

I recall the "three step formula" we (GoT) are trying to follow on this debate:

Men, as a race, disobeyed Eru's wishes consistently throughout history; AND

This trait was present since Morgoth's corruption of them(Athrabeth);AND

This trait was inheritable

I think we have proven steps 2 and 3; Step 1 is most clearly explained in the Tale of Númenor, which involved the "best" men on earth; a people who had been rewarded with bliss unimagined by any human population, and even so disobeyed Eru's wishes, personified by the Valar's ban, out of a dissatisfaction with Eru's design for Men! We can't imagine a better instance of "disobedience"; but of course, all other men (in Middle-Earth) not only had this same dissatisfaction, but many of them also fell to Sauron worship. The quotes I offered in my first post also support the idea that Men are at a variance with Ilúvatar's wishes.

YayGollum

08-11-2003, 05:52 AM

What, is it not possible to be good and weak at the same time? oh well. Let me see here. I gots to say that humans are good. Of course. Even if more people become evil in the end, they all started out good, right? That's what I think. When I get asked ---> Is this certain race evil? I would say ---> Of course not. People aren't pure anything. sorry about that. They can't help it. Even if someone decides to be evil, they are never pure evil since they started out good. They could always switch again. So if they started out good and no matter how evil they get, they can always switch back, wouldn't that make the race good? In the end? Altogether? Why not?

Eriol

08-11-2003, 06:01 AM

Originally posted by YayGollum
People aren't pure anything. sorry about that. They can't help it. Even if someone decides to be evil, they are never pure evil since they started out good.

And this absolves Melkor, Sauron, balrogs, etc. etc. They all started out good, and decided to be evil; therefore, according to you, they are not "pure evil".

To use an expression I learned from Nóm, "Bloody Hell! If Melkor is not pure evil I have no idea of what it can be".

And by the way, Tolkien's quote from the Commentary on the Athrabeth says that Melkor was pure evil; even though he was created good. So Tolkien disagrees with you, Yay, when you say that a being created good never is pure evil. Melkor is.

YayGollum

08-11-2003, 06:13 AM

I've disagreed with Tolkien before, crazy person. How can something that started out good ever be pure evil? You people said something about free will, right? If someone could start out good and somehow become pure evil, where'd their free will go? They always have the choice to be nice again. I guess you could say that Mel was really really close to getting to be pure evil. If you're pure evil, you're always evil. Mel wasn't evil in the beginning. Anyways, am I crazy for thinking that this is only supposed to be about humans? oh well.

Manveru

08-11-2003, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by YayGollum:
How can something that started out good ever be pure evil?
It’s the matter of choice (free will), Yay... If one decides to be totally evil (pure evil), then one is... s/he casts away all that is ‘good and right’... one simply rejects ‘good’ and smothers it in oneself replacing it with evil (hate, lust etc. etc.).
Originally posted by YayGollum:
You people said something about free will, right? If someone could start out good and somehow become pure evil, where'd their free will go? They always have the choice to be nice again.
But they don’t wish to be ‘good’ anymore... ‘cause they’re “stained, marked” with evil. I know, I know... they try, but what comes out of that? Definitely not ‘good’. Even the Edainic people (the “best” of all the race) are still easily seduced by ‘evil’... There's nobody else to blame, but Men (not Sauron or other 'cunning' creature).
If one wants to grow something, one needs a “seed, basic thing” to succeed, to crop in the end. And that “seed” in Men is their “inner weakness” which I quoted in my first post and which was the reason of the First Fall of Men and their sequential ‘wrongdoings’... This “seed” is simply... inherent evil, which takes us to the point that Men (as a race) are inherently evil.

Eriol

08-11-2003, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by YayGollum
I've disagreed with Tolkien before, crazy person. How can something that started out good ever be pure evil? You people said something about free will, right? If someone could start out good and somehow become pure evil, where'd their free will go? They always have the choice to be nice again. I guess you could say that Mel was really really close to getting to be pure evil. If you're pure evil, you're always evil. Mel wasn't evil in the beginning. Anyways, am I crazy for thinking that this is only supposed to be about humans? oh well.

Again, we see you (not you personally, Yay, I'm talking about GoO) thinking that free will somehow rules out evil but doesn't rule out good. Let me turn the question back to you again: "If someone could start out evil and somehow become pure good, where'd their free will go?" The answer is, I think, it would go nowhere; it is precisely because they have free will that they have that option. This applies to both good and evil beings. If they did not have free will, i.e., if they were puppets of Eru, they would be neither good nor evil. This would be a reasonable position, I think -- to deny that there is such a thing as good or evil. It would go against the words of the author, who stated that Melkor is the spirit of evil, but you said you've disagreed with the author before.

The actual position of GoO is much more... unstable, in my opinion, than that. It claims that men are good; and that they are good because they have free will. Now, if they have free will, it means they can become evil. It is almost inbuilt in the definition of "free will". So, if they really have free will, we have to look at their History to see whether they became evil or not. To claim that free will somehow excludes the possibility of evil -- but not of good -- is strange. To claim that men can't be evil [/i]because[/i] they have free will is almost contradictory.

Looking at their History, we see, clearly stated, that they have become evil. They earned the anger of Eru; they were inherently tainted; they had a constituent weakness; I'm only paraphrasing from the words of the author. Perhaps you'll disagree with him again.

And yes, this debate is about humans; but we may call in examples to make a point. If "created good" means "forever good", Melkor is good; and that was the point of the Melkor and Sauron's examples. We wanted to clear up that confusion. Now we know for sure that if a being is created good he can still become inherently evil; we just have to look at the bad guys.

Manveru

08-11-2003, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by YayGollum:
How can something that started out good ever be pure evil?
It’s the matter of choice (free will), Yay... If one decides to be totally evil (pure evil), then one is... s/he casts away all that is ‘good and right’... one simply rejects ‘good’ and smothers it in oneself replacing it with evil (hate, lust etc. etc.).
Now here’s the citation that (in my opinion) is a good strengthening to my little ‘theory’:
from The Published Silmarillion: Of Fëanor and the Unchaining of Melkor
For it came to pass that Melkor, as the Valar had decreed, completed the term of his bondage, dwelling for three ages in the duress of Mandos, alone. At length, as Manwë had promised, he was brought again before the thrones of the Valar. Then he looked upon their glory and their bliss, and envy was in his heart; he looked upon the Children of Ilúvatar that sat at the feet of the Mighty, and hatred filled him; he looked upon the wealth of bright gems, and he lusted for them; but he hid his thoughts, and postponed his vengeance. (...)
(...)and therefore in a while he was given leave to go freely about the land, and it seemed to Manwë that the evil of Melkor was cured. For Manwë was free from evil and could not comprehend it, and he knew that in the beginning, in the thought of Ilúvatar, Melkor had been even as he; and he saw not to the depths of Melkor's heart, and did not perceive that all love had departed from him for ever.

YayGollum

08-11-2003, 09:28 PM

To the Manveru person ---> I don't get your free will stuffs. Free will can let someone get rid of every single little good thing about them? Sounds crazy to me. Sounds like that person isn't a person anymore. Sure, they could choose to do evil things all the time, but they still have the option to be good no matter how evil they get to be.

People have consciences, you know. They know when they're doing something evil. Even if they're an especially evil person who doesn't care about it, they still know that they're not being good. If you somehow become pure evil, you do not have the ability to do anything that people might call good. No conscience. Doesn't sound anything like a human to me.

I don't understand the thing about the seed of evil you're talking about, either. The fact that humans are weak (which means that they have the ability to be evil sometimes, I guess) means that they are definitely evil overall? Yikes! Being weak in any way doesn't make you evil. It gives you the option to be evil. Humans are strong in ways, too.

About that quote, Valar type things are definitely a little different than humans. Didn't that Eru guy give humans special gifts? As in, the ability to do whatever they want with their futures? oh well. Maybe not. That's what I always thought. Also, I guess I could always talk about Mel. All love had departed from him forever? Love = all types of goodness you could ever think up? I don't think so.

To the Eriol person ---> The answer to your question is ---> They didn't have free will to begin with, of course. You can't suddenly become pure anything. People are imperfect. sorry about that. If someone does one thing that might be thought of as evil, they aren't pure good. If someone does one thing that might be thought of as good, they aren't pure evil.

Since neither of us can say that humans are pure anything, I gots to figure out how to prove that humans are more good than evil. I say that even if you could figure out how to prove that more humans did more evil things than good things overall (I don't think that either of us can prove things like that, though), they were still more good than evil. It's a conscience thing. I already said all kinds of things about free will before. I hope it was good enough for you. I forget where we said that having free will means that you can't be evil. Sounds crazy, but oh well. Maybe we meant pure evil or pure good?

When did humans make that Eru guy mad?

Eriol

08-11-2003, 10:23 PM

Originally posted by YayGollum

To the Eriol person ---> The answer to your question is ---> They didn't have free will to begin with, of course. You can't suddenly become pure anything. People are imperfect. sorry about that. If someone does one thing that might be thought of as evil, they aren't pure good. If someone does one thing that might be thought of as good, they aren't pure evil.

They don't have free will? But you had just asked me where would their free will go if someone turned out to be evil after becoming good. Why would you ask that if you didn't think they had free will? Look at your question from your next-to-last post:

If someone could start out good and somehow become pure evil, where'd their free will go? They always have the choice to be nice again.

I thought you were saying that they HAVE the choice to be nice again; they HAVE free will.

Never mind. If you are willing to claim that humans don't have free will, I'll have to drag up the many quotes from the Ainulindale and from "The Beginning of Days" that describe how the Children of Ilúvatar have wills of their own, and how men especially are not bound to the music, etc. etc. I don't have my Sil here now; I'll post it later.

Let's look at your next paragraph:

Since neither of us can say that humans are pure anything, I gots to figure out how to prove that humans are more good than evil. I say that even if you could figure out how to prove that more humans did more evil things than good things overall (I don't think that either of us can prove things like that, though), they were still more good than evil. It's a conscience thing.

It seems that you are taking "inherently evil" to mean "pure evil"; I don't know why. If someone is born a little evil, he is inherently evil. If someone is born a little good, he is inherently good. "Inherent" is not a matter of degree, at least how I take it; it is a matter of being inheritable and present in all the race.

If we were to make the "balance sheet" of men, clearly the evil side would win easily; do we need to post quotes for that? I wouldn't think so. I don't think, therefore, that you can claim that "either of us could not prove that humans did more evil things than good things". We can prove that men did more evil things; if we refrain from posting the quotes, it is because we think this is common knowledge. Don't you agree? I think we could post these quotes if you disagree.

At the root of it all, the sentence "it's a conscience thing". You seem to assume that, having "conscience", they were automatically good. But evil guys, to be evil, must have a conscience as well; as you just mentioned. A "conscience" is a way to say "free will"; only beings with free will have consciences, and all of them have consciences. (Which makes your assertion that men "didn't have free will to begin with" even more strange. If they had no free will, how can they have a conscience?). And a "conscience" is the only way to be good OR evil. A gun has no conscience, and therefore is not evil, nor good.

If you say that men had a conscience, then they had free will -- the possibility to be evil, or good. Yet you seem to claim that because they had a conscience, they could not be evil. That's odd. I would say that they could be evil for precisely that reason.

I already said all kinds of things about free will before. I hope it was good enough for you. I forget where we said that having free will means that you can't be evil. Sounds crazy, but oh well. Maybe we meant pure evil or pure good´

Yes, it seems you meant pure evil; but I don't understand the distinction of "pure evil" and "a little evil". If they have free will, they can go against the will of Eru; if they can go against the will of Eru, they can be evil. It's as simple as that. All of your arguments are claiming that men could not be evil; this is not only against the quotes provided by us, which showed that men are evil, but also contradictory (in my opinion), for you claim the very grounds for men's evilness -- free will -- as an argument for claiming that they can't be evil. What has "pure evil" to do with that? If they can be even a tiny bit evil, then they can be evil. We don't claim that they are purely evil, only that they are inherently (i.e., the trait is present in the whole race, and is inheritable) evil.

When did humans make that Eru guy mad?

We posted some quotes already. My first quote in the first post, when Eru, knowing that men would stray often, says that "They too" would learn that going against His wishes is useless; This "They too" is comparing men with Melkor! So it seems Eru knew beforehand that men, just as Melkor, would become evil.

Another quote is from the Tale of Adanel, in a post of mine: telling about how they bear "the anger of the Voice (Eru)". Sounds like that Eru guy is really mad.

Another quote is Manveru's quote about Númenoreans being tainted by the "inner weakness", a result of the First Fall (the Tale of Adanel).

Another quote is from the Commentary on the Athrabeth by JRRT, when he says that Elves are unfallen as a race, unlike Men. JRRT seems to be pretty definite there -- Men, as a race, are fallen. They have worshipped Morgoth.

All of these quotes were already posted. Do you want more?

Manveru

08-12-2003, 08:53 AM

Originally posted by YayGollum:
Also, I guess I could always talk about Mel. All love had departed from him forever? Love = all types of goodness you could ever think up? I don't think so.
:confused: :confused:
Love isn't 'good' enough for you, Yay...

So please find ''anything'', any 'shards of goodness' that remained in Melkor's heart and prove me wrong...
Originally posted by YayGollum:
I don't understand the thing about the seed of evil you're talking about, either. The fact that humans are weak (which means that they have the ability to be evil sometimes, I guess) means that they are definitely evil overall?
Look at the post of Eriol some way up (about Men being "fallen")... I think that the citation of Tolkien words clearly explains that:)

As for that ''seed of evil thing''... what's to understand? One cannot make sth with nothing, right? Why didn't the 'taints' of Melkor corrupt the Elves? The answers to these questions you also find in that quote Eriol posted...

Nóm

08-12-2003, 09:58 AM

So, I think we both agree that Melkor was not created evil. Since you answered "yes" to the questions about Morgoth and Sauron, that's settled: beings which were created good can become inherently evil -- right?
I never denied that, I said in my first post men can turn evil. So what are you doing?

Do you think I am just not intelligent enough to know that from this: Men are created good.

and this: Men can turn evil.

This follows: Beings created good can turn evil.

??

So, it seems your point is that all men were once evil, but that as soon as they repent, they revert to their good (created) nature and are not evil anymore. But this goes against the several mentions of the "tainted" nature of men; Manveru just posted one, and here is another:
If us saying that a man can repent and be 'good' goes against what Manveru quoted, then so does the belief that Aragorn, or any men were good. Does GoT think that no men were good? This is why I asked about Aragorn earlier, because I knew indeed that GoT might drift into this direction. A claim that the race was evil for reason that they had fallen.

Well most likely all men had fallen, unless maybe the Drudain.

But remember I've also said (btw I well aware that Tolkien says men fell because of a weakness and this was consequent of the first fall - but I do not see what point you are trying to make with the quote?) that beings who fall into evil do so not because they were inherently evil (though they can become so one for one) but because of some flaws in their design (weakness allows for this), or at least apparant flaws.

Now, because you think that men remained evil ever after the fall into Morgothism, and were evil for the reason that they were a fallen race, would you also say that a man who repents of this will remain evil? It doesn't seem that you are. The fact that good men exist within this fallen race shows that a man of a fallen race is not evil only because he is of that race, which in turn shows that one can not say men are evil for reason that they are tainted, for this would mean Aragorn, for example, is evil and not good.

The marring of men did not make them into an evil race, but a race more inclined to evil. I admitted this stuff in the opening post and I explained that each new fea comes direct from Eru... according to Eru's own design which = good. They did fall as a race, but each new baby man comes into the world with a fea from Eru, a child of Eru. It is for this reason that a comparison of the race of men with Sauron can only go so far. We are not dealing with one beign who was created good and turned evil but an entire race of beings who throughout history are born good, though tainted and inclined to evil.. as GoO has already said.

You can quote all you want about men being a fallen race but you will be spending effort needlessly as GoO admits men have fallen and why woldn't we?

And I know Morgoth's Ring well... and have shown so in my opening post, and also have demonstrated no tendency to deny what JRRT presents.

In the meantime, Can a being inherently good become evil?

Again! We have been saying so all along.

It also means abolishing free will. If Melkor is a puppet, following Eru's plans unwittingly, then he has no free will. You surely agree that Melkor thought he was going against Eru, right? So, if he is just a deluded guy who is really doing Eru's job, then he has no free will.

I did not say Melkor was a puppet. I said that Eru's designs included evil is evident by him allowing Melkor into Arda while knowing what result it would have... the marring of Arda.

Eriol I know the different between foreknowledge and foreplanning.

Regardless of why Eru did not stop Melkor, the point remains that he let evil go into the world and it was therefore part of his designs, and his words to Morgoth in the halls that be built for the Ainur show this. Eru said to Melkor: '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.'

But the question remains: are men as a race tainted by the evil that came from Morgoth worship? The quotes seem to support the "yes".
That is not the question of this debate though, men are most obviously tainted as again, I said, GoO has admitted. Again - I know Morgoth's Ring well, and I will not deny basic fundamental things about this mythology such as the FACT that men are tainted. I have shown all along in this debate to be working with this fact!

But you can not twist the question into being: are men tainted?... when it is :are men good or evil?

If you argue, as you have in this post that I have been quoting from, that a fallen man is tainted and therefore evil, then you say there are not good men. It is that simple. If you are not saying that, and are allowing that tainted does not = evil... then... what's the point of demonstrating they were tainted, especially when GoO said so all along?

Tainted does not mean evil, and I said in my opener that while their hroar are tainted and they are inclined to evil, the fea of men enter the world good. All beings of Arda are tainted to some degree anyhow.

I believe the quotes we have offered are very strong.
They show nothing GoO has not been working with all along.

Evil was in Eru's desgins, or that men were ment to seem to go against Eru, does not mean that men have no free will. This is a leap you took and I'll not be pulled into it.

Even if taking away freewill leaves a being unable to be evil by your definition, and that 'against Eru', then that would leave the being good according to your definition, as he would be unable to go against Eru, right? So all this stuff about 'if there is no freewill there can be no good or evil' aside from being irrelevant, is unreasonable.

Freewill does not rule out evil, and we are not saying that it does. It is a part of one of the reasons that Men are not evil. It is because of Men's freewill and ability to repent, and considering their short time on Arda, and that they will join the final music with the Ainur, and that they are Children of Iluvatar, that it can be presumed that most if not all who have turned to evil in life will again be good.

....if they were puppets of Eru, they would be neither good nor evil.

Nay, if they were pupputs of Eru they would not ever go against him, and this would make them good according to your definition. But what does it matter? No one said they are puppets.

Again, we see you (not you personally, Yay, I'm talking about GoO) thinking that free will somehow rules out evil but doesn't rule out good.
Well if not him then me, and if 'again' then it happend before when it was only me debating for GoO early in the debate, so tell me, when did I say that?

Instead of taking our statements as far as you can and twisting them, how about looking at what you know we mean and trying to honestly argue against it?
Now we know for sure that if a being is created good he can still become inherently evil; we just have to look at the bad guys.
This debate isnt about a being, it is about an entire race where each man born into the world enters without being evil, but has the potential for evil. Not all of them turn to Morgoth Worship, and even those who do become evil leave Arda and go to Eru. Do you suppose they remain evil?

Nóm

08-12-2003, 10:04 AM

As for all the quotes from Letters and Morgoth's Rings:
GoO has shown knowlegde and acceptance of the fall of men, and the taint of the race from the beginning of the debate, and will not start to deny it now. We have, in spite of this, claimed that each man comes into the world good, and claimed that Iluvatar does not create evil but beings that are capable of becoming evil. Beings of all race may become evil, and the fall of men makes them more inclined to become evil that other races. That is just what the fall of men was, a weakening of the race, those faults which cause any being to become evil exist in men and maybe more so, but all the same these faults, that tainting of the race of men was not a making of men evil, only more inclined to it while within Arda, as we have said before. This is largely due to men viewing death as a curse rather than a gift. Once a man's spirit leaves Arda he will learn what comes after death in Arda, and therefore his reasons for being inclined to evil will no longer exist, during which there will be no reason even an evil man should not repent.

Men are not evil by nature, but by nature capable of being evil. They are the children of Iluvatar and not creatures of Morgoth. They are not orcs. After a short time in the world they leave it, and go to Eru, and will understnd his purpose one day, and they will sing with Ainur in the final music. Because of this it can be presumed that even those men who turn to evil and depart from the world with evil in them, will repent and be redeemed.

We don't claim that they are purely evil, only that they are inherently (i.e., the trait is present in the whole race, and is inheritable) evil.
Likewise there is inherent good in men. That are not one rather than the other but undeniably both.

But for the sake of respecting the text and not making false claims we must take different views on this topic.

If men must be said to be either inherently good or inherently evil (and I disagree that this should even have to be done) then we'll have to go with good because of the reasons GoO have given. Children of god, weak or not. Created good with weakness which allows for them to be evil, but also created with the ability to repent, and it can be reasonably presumed that men, after a short while in Arda, at some point before they make music before Eru among the Ainur, they will on the whole, be redeemed. Men have a failure of hope that is not seen so much in elves, and whether men trust to it or not, the desgins of Eru will be fulfilled and death within Arda is a gift to them whether they understand it in life or not. Men who were created good will have been a part in this design, marred or not, evil deeds or not these children of Iluvatar are not inherently evil.

In this same context, I would say only orcs, dragons, or any beings of Morgoth, who may come to evil in the end just as they were evil in the beginning, are inherently evil vs inherently good.

Manveru, my statement about the fea of men being created good (though flawed) and being the only thing they take with them when they leave Arda, was not to imply that men are good only because they are created good and leave Arda, but rather that they are good because they have some great purpose beyond Arda, and must surely be redeemed. I should have spelled it out more clearly, rather than taking it for a given: They start good, and though many fall to evil, it can be assumed that they come to good in the end, as children of Eru who were created good. If not, then what hope is there, and what purpose was there in it all?

Taking that men are inherently evil rather than good, then it is to follow that men will come to evil in the end, and considering that the Tale of Ea is Iluvatar's grand design, then it must follow that men becoming evil, andbeing so inherently as a race on the whole was part of his design. This also means that the final music, which it be played aright, will be done so by Ainur + an inherently evil race, children of god at that. I just do not believe, nor do I see how anyone reasonably could believe, that music will be played aright by an evil race.

From Ainulindale:

Never since have the Ainur made any music like to this music, though it is said that a greater still shall be made before Iluvatar by the choirs of the Ainur and Children of Iluvatar after the end of days. Then the themes of Iluvatar shall be played aright, and take being in the moment of their utterance, for all shall then understand fully his intent in their part, and each shall know the comprehension of each and Iluvatar shall give to their thoughts the secret fire, being well pleased.

It can also be noted that the use of 'Children of Iluvatar' in this passage was orginally written in The Music of The Ainur as 'sons of Men' and was later written as 'Children of Iluvatar' through the versions which closely followed each previous one, and many, including CT, believe this to be a slip that was over-looked by JRRT, but CT lets it stand in the published Silmarillion. So the big chance is that this refers here to men and not men and elves.

Would Iluvatar be well pleased if men had gone against him truly and to such a degree that they were a race inherently evil, which by your definition means 'against Eru'. Would Eru give the secret fire to an evil race?

Created good, coming to good in the end (freewill and existance beyond Arda allow for redemption of evil some men fall to in Arda)... that is an inherently good and not inherently evil race.
Also, what about this distinction the author makes between men and 'evil men'.. rather than men and 'good men'?

Also note that the Eldar, even Finrod who was accounted wisest of the exiles, and whose heart is as pure and good as they get among the Children od Eru, was a friend of men and indeed believed that men could have a purpose of fulfilling Arda Remade. Would such an elf be a friend of an evil race and have those hopes for them? Was Finrod an orc friend?

Do you really think that Children of Eru, a race who have some grand purpose and are created good, is evil rather than good?

Eriol

08-12-2003, 04:47 PM

Gosh, I'm always either demeaning your intelligence or twisting your words... Nóm, take a breath. We agreed to not discuss "tactics". I just take your words, I read them, and I reply. You said -- the first sentence in the debate -- that men are not evil because they are created good. I'm sorry if you don't like my reading of it, but that's what the words mean. I'm glad that you agree with us now. Let's not attack each other in the meantime, shall we?

You have only "agreed with the quotes" in your last post, while claiming to have agreed with them from the beginning. This time there is not even words to be twisted. It's no use claiming to "have shown knowledge and acceptance" if you won't post it here. And I don't know what it is to be "agreed" about quotes, anyway.

Working backwards, let me see the GoO claims so far:

I have seen YayGollum claiming that men don't have free will;

I have seen YayGollum saying that men can't be evil because created good;

I have seen Nóm claim that evil was a part of Eru's design;

I have seen Nóm claim that men can't be evil because their fëar came from Eru.

It seems the problem is the distinction between "pure evil" and "evil" that Yay made, and you seem to support. For GoO, a being is either "pure evil" or "non-evil" (since you seem not to be supporting that men are good). Why? If Morgoth is "pure evil", or close to that, why can't a man be a little like Morgoth? Wouldn't he be "a little evil" then? You seem to agree with those critics that call Tolkien's work "shallow-minded, black and white".

As the quotes show, and you agreed with them, Men are a little like Morgoth. There are many passages in the Sil that claim exactly that in so many words. GoT is not claiming that men are orcs; again, there are not even words of ours to be twisted here. We are claiming that men are "inherently evil". That's it. A little evil is evil. A little weak is weak.

The "weakness" mentioned by Tolkien is evil; the "Fall" mentioned by Tolkien is evil. It is found in the entire race.

What do you say of our "3-step strategy?" You seem to disagree that if we proved those three things, our case would be proved. Why? I won't analyze all of your words, because I don't want to run the risk of upsetting you again. Can you just tell me why that strategy is flawed?

The curious thing is when Nóm claims to know the difference between foreknowledge and foreplanning -- and in the very next paragraph shows that she does not -- unless she's indulging in a "tactic".

Let's have a look at that, quoting the whole section, so that we won't be accused of twisting words:

Eriol I know the different between foreknowledge and foreplanning.

Regardless of why Eru did not stop Melkor, the point remains that he let evil go into the world and it was therefore part of his designs, and his words to Morgoth in the halls that be built for the Ainur show this. Eru said to Melkor: '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.'

Is it not obvious that Eru is telling to Melkor that no one can alter the music in His [Eru] despite? Does that not mean that Melkor's alterations will be against Eru's wishes? Not only the sentence itself is clear, but to assume otherwise would put everybody (not just Melkor) as puppets of Eru (no matter how much Nóm complains of this characterization), since they would be playing predetermined roles. And the History of Arda would be a cruel trick, full of suffering and death and hate, engineered by Eru -- if we accept that Melkor's actions were foreplanned by Eru. Eru would be the true Melkor then. But if we accept that Melkor's actions are merely foreknown by Eru, then we see that Melkor is acting against Eru wishes, i.e., being Evil -- and the same argument applies to all beings, including men.

If Nóm really understands the difference between foreplanning and foreknowing, she'll agree with that.

Another line of reasoning of GoO touches on the role of men in Arda -- that if men were evil they would not be the Children of Eru. A lot of emotional sentences, the mentioning of Finrod, etc. etc. But this still stems from the confusion between "created good" and "good" that began at the first sentence of the debate, and even while it is denied, shows up again and again. Men were created good; they fell and became evil. This does not touch their purpose in Arda; it does not touch Finrod's relationship with men.

It was also said that if they were evil they would not have the Imperishable Flame. Why is it that every argument of that sort can be countered with other examples? Did not the Balrogs have the Imperishable Flame? We see from the story of Aulë and the Dwarves that "the Imperishable Flame" is the ability to think and act and be other than the maker -- i.e., it is simply free will. Don't the Balrogs have free will? What about Sauron? Morgoth?

GoO's arguments -- all of them -- are pointed at the conclusion that men can't be evil, for this or that reason. Sure, Nóm says that individual men can be evil, but she says that the race can't; and YayGollum still has not said even that. GoT asks simply: why not? Why not, if we have the quotes and the opinion of the author? The only explanation for the GoO's stance is that they don't accept that being "a little evil" is being evil -- and I would like to see some explanation for that. They want us to prove that Men are Orcs -- we're proving that men are evil, even though they're not Orcs. It's not black and white.

If we see the flaws in the arguments that men can't be evil, we have to look at the books to see whether they were, in fact, evil. And we have produced the quotes -- quotes in which Eru and Tolkien say that men as a race are evil. They (men) wish to go against Eru's wishes.

I recall the GoT three-step strategy. Is it wrong? Is there a flaw anywhere in it?

Eriol

08-12-2003, 07:46 PM

Tainted does not mean evil, and I said in my opener that while their hroar are tainted and they are inclined to evil, the fea of men enter the world good. All beings of Arda are tainted to some degree anyhow.

Nóm said that. And I just realized that this proves our case very strongly, which is that this "general tainting" of which she is referring to -- the marring of Arda by Melkor in the beginning -- is not enough to explain the evil of men. For by this reasoning, Elves should be as evil (or as good, or whatever) as men, since they are made of the stuff of Arda just as men. And yet we have JRRT claiming that Elves are "unfallen as a people", unlike Men.

It seems that the marring of Arda is not enough to explain Men's inclinations, whether they are evil, good, or in-between. For we may take it as a fact, on JRRT's word, that Men are unlike Elves in that regard. And they are both equally subjected to the tainting of hröar.

If Men were like Elves in that regard, then we could say that individual men are good or evil according to their personal history -- as we do with Elves. But this is not the case. Men, as a people, are "fallen". What is the result of this fall? It seems GoO is claiming that the result is not that the race became evil. But our quotes show otherwise; and in my next post I'll post all the quotes from the Sil that I can find to the effect that "Men go against the will of Eru" all the time, from the fall onwards, constantly. In fact, I would think that the quote from the Tale of Adanel would be enough -- there we see that Eru is angry with men even after they repent. Why would that be so? Is Eru such a mean God that he is angry with his children, even if they did nothing wrong and are free from evil? We never see a statement claiming that Eru was somehow angry with the Elves. How can 'the marring of Arda' be the explanation, then?

I think it is much more likely that Eru (and Tolkien) know what they are talking about. If Eru is angry with men even after they repented Morgoth worship, he has some good reasons for that.

In other words, they are inherently evil.

YayGollum

08-12-2003, 11:38 PM

Yikes! Too much to reply to! I hate having to make gigantic posts! oh well. At least everything I have to reply to is easy.

Where do you come up with the idea that I don't think that humans don't have free will? just because of my answer to your question? You were talking about a human who couldn't exist. Not my fault. My question about someone suddenly and impossibly being able to become pure evil shows that I don't think it's possible. If you have free will, you can't suddenly and impossibly become pure anything.

You talking about the inherently evil thing is craziness. You say that if someone is a tiny bit evil, the entire race is mostly that. Doesn't make any sense since people are also good. I said that they were imperfect and that we just have to find some way to show how they're more of one or the other.

I definitely disagree that it's clear that there are more people who have been more evil than good. You could toss as many quotes as you feel like tossing around in here. Doesn't matter. just because twenty-seven thousand people do evil things and are considered fallen because of what some particular generation did doesn't make the race as a whole more evil than good. I like what the Confusticated lady had to say about the fact that humans die and get to hang out with Eru and sing craziness with the guy.

I wasn't saying that the fact that people have consciences makes them more good than evil. It's just that having a conscience is a nice little seed for my side. :rolleyes: It seems like you're saying that humans are only weak. Or at least that they have more weaknesses than strengths.

Difference between pure evil and a little evil ---> It is impossible for a human to be pure anything. We are imperfect. sorry about that. We're a combination of good and evil. Try showing how the race as a whole is more evil than good. Here's my proof that the race as a whole is more good than evil ---> The conscience lets them know when they're doing something evil. Even if they have fun with doing evil things, they feel bad about it. Mel felt like corrupting them. If they were definitely a lot more evil, he wouldn't need to do anything. Same thing with Sauron in Numenor. If they were obviously already achingly evil, why would he have to corrupt them? And then of course ---> Eru made them. Craziness. "Hi, I'm Eru! I feel like creating something that is seventy-five percent evil!" *gasp!* :rolleyes:

About Eru getting mad, I guess I would need some quotes pointed out. I'm just crazy, though. I don't remember seeing things spelled out. "Hi, I'm Eru, and this is what makes me mad!" I don't remember seeing anything like that. Looks like you're just assuming things most of the time.

Oh, Manveru person, do I have to find something good about the Mel guy? He's just so cool while he's evil! oh well. You never answered my question about love. You tossed another question at me. oh well. Mel definitely had free will and a conscience and everything. That means that he felt bad about doing evil things even if he had fun with it. It's good to feel bad about doing evil things, I guess.

Also, you don't think that elves were tainted by Mel? Sounds crazy to me. I can think of a few elves who were messed with by the guy. Or maybe you were just talking about an overall type thing? I don't know. Sure, Mel got to mess with more humans than elves, but that doesn't make the humans any less good. Maybe a little weaker. Weaknesses have nothing to do with being good or evil.

What makes you think that I'm thinking that things have to be achingly black and white? sorry for any misunderstandings I've run you into. If I didn't like Tolkien type things, I wouldn't be here. I would say that there is no such thing as pure evil. There are such things as evil and good people. Of course. But then, humans are obviously more good than evil. Overall. Read my proof.

What's your three step strategy? It looks like you like to quote things.

Sure, being a little evil is definitely being evil. sorry if I made you think that I don't agree with that. I had no idea that the topic of this debate was ---> Are humans evil at all? Did the topic suddenly change? I did not know that. Are you people really this negative, or are you just acting crazy because of the side you've chosen? oh well. just wondering.

Manveru

08-13-2003, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by YayGollum:
Oh, Manveru person, do I have to find something good about the Mel guy?
Of course you don’t have to... it’s just... when you can’t find ‘anything good’ about Melkor, it proves me being right (every person likes to be right about sth;))
Originally posted by YayGollum:
Mel definitely had free will and a conscience and everything. That means that he felt bad about doing evil things even if he had fun with it. It's good to feel bad about doing evil things, I guess.
Melkor did what?! ‘Felt bad about doing evil things’?! Impossible... :confused: You’ll need a ‘strong’ proof for that... otherwise I won’t believe it... never.
Melkor was Evil himself... when one thinks of ‘Evil’ in Middle-earth, one thinks of ‘Melkor, Morgoth (and other of his names)’... And about his conscience... I would not risk a statement that Morgoth the Black Enemy has ‘one’. If he could release himself from the ‘bounds’ that Valar set on him, he would have change nothing in his ‘wrongdoings’... he would have been still ‘Evil incarnated’.
Originally posted by YayGollum:
Weaknesses have nothing to do with being good or evil.
So then... Is being a weak a ‘vice’ or a ‘virtue’?
Originally posted by YayGollum:
Sure, being a little evil is definitely being evil. sorry if I made you think that I don't agree with that. I had no idea that the topic of this debate was ---> Are humans evil at all? Did the topic suddenly change?
I’m glad you agree with us...

And as for the topic:
Originally posted by baragund:
"In the context of Tolkien's legendarium, are Men inherently Good or Evil?"
It has not changed. We’re talking about are Men inherently Good or Evil in the context of Tolkien’s legendarium. To me it’s clear that Men are inherently Evil in that context... GoT's quotes show that (and there will be more of them, I guess).
Originally posted by YayGollum:
Are you people really this negative, or are you just acting crazy because of the side you've chosen? oh well. just wondering.
Isn’t that true that everyone is ‘acting crazy’ in some way? (but it’s not a topic to debate here;))

Nóm

08-13-2003, 10:25 AM

Being a little evil is being evil. I made a distinction earlier in the debate between evil and what I called 'pure evil'. Pure evil being utter blasphemy... Morgoth Worship, taking Morgoth as God and denying Eru. Men can of course do evil things without being worshippers of Morgoth, and in doing so they are being evil. men can also worship Morgoth and repent of it.

GoO also said earlier that men are both good and evil, but for the sake of the debate we must argue that they are one rather than the other.

I don't know why you are saying that GoO keeps saying that a man can not be evil, because it has been said by GoO from the first post and throughout the debate that men can be evil, and do fall to evil.

You said -- the first sentence in the debate -- that men are not evil because they are created good. I'm sorry if you don't like my reading of it, but that's what the words mean.
But since a sentence ends at a period rather than a comma, that was not my first sentence. I therefore do not know why you keep saying it was my first sentence.

You have only "agreed with the quotes" in your last post, while claiming to have agreed with them from the beginning. This time there is not even words to be twisted. It's no use claiming to "have shown knowledge and acceptance" if you won't post it here. And I don't know what it is to be "agreed" about quotes, anyway.
The things shown in those quotes... that men were a fallen race, and were tainted and had a weakness which makes them more inclined to evil, are elements that have been present in GoO's arguement from the start. We did not open disagreeing with, or ignoring what Tolkien presented, and I have not done so in the debate... therefore we have been in agreement with those quotes that GoT provided.

Now YayGollum has not read Morgoth's Ring so he is unaware that Eru was indeed, according to legend, angered by men when they took to Morgoth-worship.

It seems the problem is the distinction between "pure evil" and "evil" that Yay made, and you seem to support. For GoO, a being is either "pure evil" or "non-evil" (since you seem not to be supporting that men are good).
I do not support that a being must be either pure evil or non-evil, and I have said things throughout the debate, that undeniably demonstrate through very strong implication that I do not belive that.

If Morgoth is "pure evil", or close to that, why can't a man be a little like Morgoth? Wouldn't he be "a little evil" then?
Men are not free from evil any more than they are free from good, and men are a little evil, and some men are very evil, likewise some men are very good.

You seem to agree with those critics that call Tolkien's work "shallow-minded, black and white".
I have made disctinctions between evil and pure evil, and I have said through the debate that men are inclined to evil... so where in tarnation did you get this idea?

GoT is not claiming that men are orcs; again, there are not even words of ours to be twisted here. We are claiming that men are "inherently evil". That's it. A little evil is evil. A little weak is weak.
If a little evil being evil is reason enough to say that the race is inherently evil, then a little good must be reason enough to say that the race in inherently good.

The "weakness" mentioned by Tolkien is evil; the "Fall" mentioned by Tolkien is evil. It is found in the entire race.

Men's weakness is not an evil, it is a thing which causes them to be inclined to evil.

Is it not obvious that Eru is telling to Melkor that no one can alter the music in His [Eru] despite? Does that not mean that Melkor's alterations will be against Eru's wishes?
It does not mean that. It means that none can alter the music against Iluvatar. Any who attempt to do so will prove Eru's intstrument.

This does not have to mean all of Melkor's actions where foreplanned by Iluvatar.
It means Melkor could not truly go against Iluvatar, but could only attempt it and be proven an instrument.

Evil was obviously a part of Iluvatar's desgin. It is evident by his actions and words to Melkor... if you can't see that from the quote I provided before and by the fact that Iluvatar had foreknowledge of exactly what Melkor's role was to be and let Melkor go on with that role shows that evil was a part of Iluvatar's design, then I don't know how else to prove it.

Eru tells Melkor that one attempting to alter the music in his despite will prove to have been his own instrument. Therefore Melkor was Erus instrument. Melkor was evil, so Eru's instrument = evil. So evil = part of Erus design.

The history of Arda is Eru's design and evil is a huge part of the tale of Arda. Am I missing something which causes you to think that evil was not part of Eru's design? If so, what is it?

Another line of reasoning of GoO touches on the role of men in Arda -- that if men were evil they would not be the Children of Eru.
It is not that they would not be his children if they were evil, but that the children of god would not be evil, and especially considering their part in the music at the end, and the setting within them of the Secret Fire by Eru who will be well pleased at this point. If Eru's good race, his children, came to evil in the end would he be well pleased?

A lot of emotional sentences, the mentioning of Finrod, etc. etc.
Why graze over this stuff and chalk it up to being emotional and sum it up to being 'mentioning of Finrod, etc. etc.' when it is most obviously a major part of GoO's case?
I care about this topic too much to let you do this.

What is told of the end of days regarding men, is the greatest implication of their nature, maybe even more so than what we know of their beginning. We know men start out good but inclined to evil, and many do fall into evil, but here I explained the end of men, and showed that we have all the reason to think that men are good at the end. Why chalk this up to 'emotional' and say no more of it?

That mentioning of Finrod's hope and belief that men whom he loves, will have a role in Arda-remade, is strong implication that the race of men is good because Finrod was good and wise, and why would a good and wise Elda love an evil race?

But this still stems from the confusion between "created good" and "good" that began at the first sentence of the debate, and even while it is denied, shows up again and again. Men were created good; they fell and became evil. This does not touch their purpose in Arda; it does not touch Finrod's relationship with men.
That men were created good is part of one of the major reasons that we know they are inherently good.

First of all, the way Eru made them indicates how he wanted them to be - which is Good. It also shows that men start life as good beings, and since we also know they can be , and all things consindered should be, redeemed before the end, they are inherently good.

Why is it that every argument of that sort can be countered with other examples?

Counter the fact that men can and should be redeemed before the end.

Counter that men will be in the music with the Ainur at the end.

Counter that Eru will be well pleased at this.

Counter that Eru does not put evil beings into existance.

Tolkien says that Eru would not have given freewill to an evil race such as orcs, so why then would he give a thing to another evil race, as you claim that men are.

Counter that evil, Arda Marred, was in accordance with Eru's design.

Counter that a wise and kind Elda would not love, and believe an evil race to have a huge role in the remaking of Arda.

Counter the the claim that the implication that 'evil men' being used to differentiate from 'men' rather than 'good men' from men, is that 'men' were not 'evil men' but only 'evil men' were.

I am sorry for being so rude to Eriol in this debate. It is disrespectful to the Host and to both teams. I strongly dislike and disagree with the way Eriol debates thorughout the fourm but that does not make him wrong as I am no judge of how people should and should not argue, so he shouldn't take trouble for it... and especially not in a group activity with 'innocent' bystanders.

Nóm

08-13-2003, 10:36 AM

Did not the Balrogs have the Imperishable Flame? We see from the story of Aulë and the Dwarves that "the Imperishable Flame" is the ability to think and act and be other than the maker -- i.e., it is simply free will. Don't the Balrogs have free will? What about Sauron? Morgoth?
The Flame impersiahble is not within the Ainur. It was within Eru, and also within Arda itself because Eru set it there.

Melkor sought for the secret fire before the beginning of time, not knwoing that it was only within Iluvatar. This is a great gift and a thing that men do not have, but will get in the end when Eru is well pleased. Where does it say that Iluvatar gave to drwaves the secret fire?

It was also said that if they were evil they would not have the Imperishable Flame.
Giving to men the imperishable flame at the end is no small gift and there is no reason to think Iluvatar would give this to an evil race is there? Eru is the only being we know if who has the Secret Fire, and he will give this to the htought of men in the end. Is this not something great? And is this a thing he'd give to an evil race?

GoO's arguments -- all of them -- are pointed at the conclusion that men can't be evil, for this or that reason.
The arguement are not that men can not be evil, but rather that they are not inherently evil as is evident by the reasons we present.

Sure, Nóm says that individual men can be evil, but she says that the race can't; and YayGollum still has not said even that.
I said that the race is not inherently evil, not that it 'can not be'.

GoT asks simply: why not? Why not, if we have the quotes and the opinion of the author?
Well we've been giving the reasons, so I don't want to restate them all here.

But I'll ask you now: If men can be good, why can't the race be good? We too have the opinion of the author. We're reading the same books and quotes here and coming up with different ways of looking at it.

JTTR did not state that the race of men are inherently evil rather than good, does he? He did not state that the weakness which inclines men to evil is an evil itself, did he? So the opinion of the author is being interpreted, and I'm sure you're aware but I'll point it out for all who are not (if any): JRRT did not state the claim of GoT that men are an inherently evil race. Did he?

The only explanation for the GoO's stance is that they don't accept that being "a little evil" is being evil -- and I would like to see some explanation for that.
Being a little evil is being evil just as being a little good is being good.

That is not the only explaination for our stance, and is not even an explaination for our stance as I see it.

They want us to prove that Men are Orcs -- we're proving that men are evil, even though they're not Orcs. It's not black and white.

Reading my posts in this debate, do you honestly get the impression I am seeing this as black and white?

But maybe it is GoT who seeing this as black and white. If men do evil at all the race must therefore be inherently evil? Is that it? For a race to be good, they must be free of evil, is that it?

I wouldn't want anyone to prove that men are orcs, unless it can be proven. I do not expect it can be, and do not expect GoT to try. I used orcs as an example of what I would call an inherently evil race.. to contrast that inherently evil race with the race of men.

If we see the flaws in the arguments that men can't be evil, we have to look at the books to see whether they were, in fact, evil. And we have produced the quotes -- quotes in which Eru and Tolkien say that men as a race are evil. They (men) wish to go against Eru's wishes.

You even admit the existance of good men, right? Men can go against Eru sometimes during their time in Arda, but because of how they start coupled with what is known of their end, and other things GoO has metnioned, it looks obvious that men are not inherently evil as a race.

Would an inherently evil race be created good and have ability for redemption?

Would the major result of the fall of men, that is the fear of death, be no longer present after the fea of a man leaves Arda? And would this therefore mean men would no longer have that reason for being evil? Would this not mean they should repent and mostly likely do? And furthermore is it not reasonable to assume that Eru would not be well pleased if men were inherently evil at the end? Can it be said that if men are good in the end and were so in the beginning, that they are inherently good?

I recall the GoT three-step strategy. Is it wrong? Is there a flaw anywhere in it?

The flaw with GoT is that looks only at men's short time in Arda, and that it says if men do evil they are inherently evil, while not applying that same logic to the good that they do.

GoT also seem to have implied, and correct me if I am wrong, that men must be inherently evil because they are each of a fallen race. But if this is true then one would have to believe all men are evil, since all men are of a fallen race, right?

The problem with that is that the fall did not make men evil. The weakness resulting from the fall is not an evil itself. Men are weak because of the fall, not evil. They may turn to evil because of those weaknesses but that does not mean the weaness is an evil. If the weakness which leads to evil is an evil then Eru created evil beings since all of his beings (except maybe Manwe) can fall to evil. This is one reason why men are not evil just because they are of a fallen race... beings of unfallen race may also turn to evil.

If the fall of men made men into an inherently evil race, and if this weakness which was the result of that fall is an evil in itself then no men are free from it, and there all men, even Aragorn, are evil.

Show me were Tolkien says that the weakness of men result from the fall is an evil in itself?

Nóm said that. And I just realized that this proves our case very strongly, which is that this "general tainting" of which she is referring to -- the marring of Arda by Melkor in the beginning -- is not enough to explain the evil of men.
I don't see how this proves your case?

GoO never said that men are only inclined to evil because of the geenral tainting of he fabric which was experienced by all beings of Arda! We mention the general tainting of all the beings of Arda just to show that all beings can potentially turn to evil.

That the general marring of Arda is not the only reason men can fall to evil, is something you are claiming proves your case. But how does it?

And to go one further we have said that men are more inclined to evil because of the fall!

The fall was specific to the race if men. All the same all beings of Arda were inclined to evil to some degree, and all beings of Arda were tainted and therefore stained with Morgoth's evil.

We have argued that the race of men they are inherently good even though they have this inclination to evil because of their flaws resulting from the fall of men.

Anyhow how could my own words prove your case when you are arguing against most that I say, I am obviously an unreliable source, right?

All my words there show is that men were tainted from the marring of the fabric of Arda. This is common knowledge to you and I, so where is this new proof you speak of?

How can 'the marring of Arda' be the explanation, then?

We never said it was!!

It is not the only explaination for men being inclined to evil. We never said it was, and have gone further and said that the fall of the race is an explaination, and you must have read where we've said that?

I think it is much more likely that Eru (and Tolkien) know what they are talking about. If Eru is angry with men even after they repented Morgoth worship, he has some good reasons for that.

In other words, they are inherently evil.
Doubtless Eru was angered with good reason. Likewise it is doubtless that he was well pleased in the end without a good reason. If he is so angered when men failed in the beginning, how do you think he'd feel if they came to evil in the end? Certainly no well pleased, and would certainly not gift to them the flame imperishable. His giving to them the Secret Fire at the end, is something great and Eru is well pleased... not angered or grieving.

So no, in other words they are inherently good. Started good, ended good, regardless of evil deeds in between. And even in Arda 'evil men' is a distinction from the whole of men.

Nóm

08-13-2003, 12:11 PM

In my last post;
Doubtless Eru was angered with good reason. Likewise it is doubtless that he was well pleased in the end without a good reason.

This should read 'Likewise it is doubtless that he was well pleased in the end with good reason.'

Manveru

08-13-2003, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by Nóm:
Doubtless Eru was angered with good reason. Likewise it is doubtless that he was well pleased in the end without a good reason. If he is so angered when men failed in the beginning, how do you think he'd feel if they came to evil in the end? Certainly no well pleased, and would certainly not gift to them the flame imperishable. His giving to them the Secret Fire at the end, is something great and Eru is well pleased... not angered or grieving.
Further down is a quote Nóm used earlier in the debate:
Originally posted by Nóm:
From Ainulindale:
[QUTOE] Never since have the Ainur made any music like to this music, though it is said that a greater still shall be made before Iluvatar by the choirs of the Ainur and Children of Iluvatar after the end of days. Then the themes of Iluvatar shall be played aright, and take being in the moment of their utterance, for all shall then understand fully his intent in their part, and each shall know the comprehension of each and Iluvatar shall give to their thoughts the secret fire, being well pleased.
[/QUOTE]
This quote is to prove GoO’s side that Men, as a race, are inherently good... Allow me not to agree with that (for simple reason):
foreknowledge-and-foreplanning-thing – there was a ‘little quarrel’ about this earlier (what about it?—has it been forgotten or missed up on purpose?). I’m about to explain why I used that here... If the above quote is taken as a foreknowledge the case in which Men, as a race, are inherently good (because created good etc.) doesn’t have to be so certain (as Nóm ‘argues’). Why? Foreknowledge does not make things to happen in the end (no matter what). If it was to do so, it would not be foreknowledge but foreplanning. In this case the whole matter of ‘freewill’ would simply disappear. And beings created by Eru would be ‘puppets’ (as was earlier said, as well) doing what was set out to do for them by a ‘higher power’. When ‘freewill concept’ disappears, it’s pointless to argue “whether Men are Good or Evil”. See the big picture?

It is said (foreknowledged) that “Iluvarar shall give to their thoughts the secret fire” in the end, but we mustn’t think that it will happen ‘no matter what’. If Men, as a race, act ‘good’ in Arda, they will obtain ‘the grace’, and Eru will be pleased then. But if Men, as a race, do ‘evil’ things, they won’t deserve to obtain ‘the grace’, and Eru will be angered with them. These are to possible choices... If Men are to be ‘good’ in the end no matter what their ‘deeds’ in Arda are like... I think in this case this whole debating thing makes no sense. So as this statement:
Originally posted by Nóm:
So no, in other words they are inherently good. Started good, ended good, regardless of evil deeds in between.

Nóm

08-13-2003, 01:11 PM

That evil is a huge part in the tale of Arda and that the tale is Eru's design, shows that evil is a part of Eru's design.

That Eru, even before the beginning of time, knew the role of Melkor and said that no theme could be played that didn't have its uttermost source in him, and that any attempts to alter the music in his dispite would prove to have been his own instrument shows that evil was in the designs of Eru.

This does not mean Eru planned that men would do evil things... but he knew they would even before the beginning of Ea or beginning of time. He knew that Melkor would introduce evil, and he let this happend and said Melkor was his own intstrument for this.

Do you deny that evil was a part of Eru's design?

(what about it?—has it been forgotten or missed up on purpose?).

Well I did my best to address it in my last posts.
Hopefully what I just posted here will have cleared things up.

I’m about to explain why I used that here... If the above quote is taken as a foreknowledge the case in which Men, as a race, are inherently good (because created good etc.) doesn’t have to be so certain (as Nóm ‘argues’). Why? Foreknowledge does not make things to happen in the end (no matter what).
Foreknowledge on the part of Eru that men would do evil is not the reason that GoO gives for men being good.

Foreknowledge of Melkor's evil is a reason that we know evil was a part of Eru's design.

It is said (foreknowledged) that “Iluvarar shall give to their thoughts the secret fire” in the end, but we mustn’t think that it will happen ‘no matter what’. If Men, as a race, act ‘good’ in Arda, they will obtain ‘the grace’, and Eru will be pleased then. But if Men, as a race, do ‘evil’ things, they won’t deserve to obtain ‘the grace’, and Eru will be angered with them. These are to possible choices... If Men are to be ‘good’ in the end no matter what their ‘deeds’ in Arda are like... I think in this case this whole debating thing makes no sense.

If?
Musn't think it will happen 'no matter what'?

From Ainulindale: 'It is said that a greater still shall be made before Iluvatar by the choirs of the Ainur and Children of Iluvatar after the end of days. Then the themes of Iluvatar shall be played aright, and take being in the moment of their utterance, for all shall then understand fully his intent in their part, and each shall know the comprehension of each and Iluvatar shall give to their thoughts the secret fire, being well pleased.'

It is said that this will happen, not that it might happen.

Or do you discredit it only because 'it is said' rather than 'it has been'?

If that is the case then you may as well discredit everything 'that was said'. And also believe that the hope of the Children of Eru is a cruel joke.

If things are bad in the end, then what was estel? What was the purpose of it all? If things end bad then God caused a horrible tale to be and is therefore an 'evil' god, at least according to our pereceptions. But even if this is the case, it would mean that what is right for him only appears as evil to us, but is not really so, not in his creation, because he is the father and master of Ea. What he says goes, what he wants is good. He defines good within his creation, not us.

Do you think this hope of elves and even of men, and even of the Ainur, and this trust in Iluvatar, will have been a false one in the end? That it will all come to nothing but evil? What about Arda-Remade? Is it going to be remade, but only by evil beings?

I think in this case this whole debating thing makes no sense. So as this statement:

Originally posted by Nóm:
So no, in other words they are inherently good. Started good, ended good, regardless of evil deeds in between.

You have claimed that it may go bad in the end.

Tell me, if it does so, will this have been Iluvatar's design?

If you really believe or claim that Eru's design will fail in the end, in other worlds that Morgoth will have the victory, then I really can't argue with that.

Personally, I do not believe it will be the case, nor do the elves and men with estel.

Eriol

08-13-2003, 04:22 PM

Many points being made here. I'll address YayGollum first.

Yay, please tell me if you agree with the following sentences. I'm getting lost with what you're saying there, and I want to make sure.

1. Men have free will
2. "Inherently evil" does not mean "pure evil"
3. A little evil is evil
4. Conscience (or free will) allows men to be good or evil. They couldn't be called good (or evil) if they had no conscience, like a gun.

Nóm, about the debating style: never mind. I guess you're not the only one who dislikes it :(.

Let's see the arguments then.

You ask me to counter these assertions:

1. Counter the fact that men can and should be redeemed before the end.

2. Counter that men will be in the music with the Ainur at the end.

3. Counter that Eru will be well pleased at this.

4. Counter that Eru does not put evil beings into existance.

5. Tolkien says that Eru would not have given freewill to an evil race such as orcs, so why then would he give a thing to another evil race, as you claim that men are.

6. Counter that evil, Arda Marred, was in accordance with Eru's design.

7. Counter that a wise and kind Elda would not love, and believe an evil race to have a huge role in the remaking of Arda.

8. Counter the the claim that the implication that 'evil men' being used to differentiate from 'men' rather than 'good men' from men, is that 'men' were not 'evil men' but only 'evil men' were.

I numbered them for easy reference.

1. If they will be "redeemed", I think this means that they are evil. There is nothing to be "redeemed of" if they are not. I accept the fact that you offered.

2. This is an effect of how men were created. They were created good. They can turn evil in the meantime.

3. And well he might; after all men will be redeemed and fulfilling their purpose. This, also, is something that will happen in the future (I don't doubt that it will, by the way). But men can be evil before being redeemed and singing.

4. Yes, but he puts beings with free will that can turn evil into existence -- as the examples of Melkor and Sauron shows. Did I really have to counter that argument, again?

5. He gave free will to a good race, which then used this free will to turn evil. This is a very important point which I repeat over and over -- you can't be evil without free will. Is a gun evil? Is a vicious dog evil?

6. This is the first assertion of the list that I disagree with, the first instance of something that I think is wrong. I'll explain it in the detail in just a moment.

7. I simply can't see why not -- unless you are taking "inherently evil" to be "pure evil". Why wouldn't Finrod love a race that is a little evil, but in which some individuals are trying to be good? This is also a crucial point. A being can try to be good and remain evil. It's not just a matter of wishing -- otherwise all beings would be good. No one, with the possible exception of demonic spirits (Sauron, Melkor, etc.) -- and I'm not sure of that exception -- wishes to be evil. Evil people are simply trying to be good, in the wrong way; they judge th