: : : : : I have always wondered why Men and Elves are called the Children of Iluvatar (and he called Dwarves his adopted children), but the Ainur are not. Sometimes they are refered to as "children of his thought", but that is a different classsification. It seems to me that one possible explanation is that the Ainur do not have "free will" in the way that Elves, Men, and Dwarves do. Whenever there is a major decision to be made, they always consult with Eru before they can take action. Also, they themselves were the singers of the Music. It was said that they didn't fully comprehend the Music (and didn't understand the Theme that contained Elves and Men at all), but it seems to me that just in hearing the Music, they would be guided by it. Whenever something good results from the action of an Ainu, it is refered to as "doom" or "fate" or some such. Often, when the Ainur take action without consulting Eru, the consequences are undesirable.

: : : : : I am not arguing that the Ainur are automata (my evidence doesn't come close to suggesting that), but I do think that they are not as free to choose their course of action as the Children of Iluvatar are. I think that this difference in the degree of "freedom" of will is why the Ainur and the Children are so often at odds. (One could argue that Men have even more "free" will than Elves, and that's the source of their estrangement.)

: : : : I would say the Ainur are as free as we are to do things, but are perhaps a bit wiser in that they realized that their actions apart from Eru often had undesirable effects. Consider it like a contractor building a house. He has the expertise to build a good sturdy house, but he must consult the architect's plans to insure that he builds it according to specifications. In the same way the Ainur have learned it is best to consult the Architect of Middle-Earth before acting or when in doubt.

: : : : I recently heard a preacher saying that no one (excluding God I suppose) has absolute free will. I forget the examples he gave to support his reasoning. But I can think of various things that might hinder freewill. I am free to go to Mars, but the physical apparatus is not yet available for the flight. Or are we like rats in a maze, free to follow any path, but only one path leading to the "reward"? Or as God says, "Come now, let us reason together. On the one hand I offer you life and on the other Death. Therefore choose Life." That's not an entirely accurate quote, but I hope it's close enough to make the point.

: : : : Finally, I don't have any answers really. Theologians have debated this question of Fate and Free Will for thousands of years without getting too far beyond the basic question and then running into multiple dilemmas or contradictions no matter which side of the question they were on. Years ago such matters seemed important to me, but as I've gotten older just making a decent paycheck and getting through the week has supplanted youthful idealism and the quest for ultimate Truth.

: : : : I am happy to read the LOTR and ask few questions. I merely bask in the language and the story, fearing that I might walk around a corner in Bree and find that the whole town is a bunch of facades with only the illusion of depth. As long as I stick with the story I don't stray too far the world remains real and intact.

: : : I am young, and want to seek truth with all my might. Unfortunatly, this is beyond my understanding. Taking Eru, it appears that he knows exactly what will happen, that he has either planned it, or has perfect knowledge about it, and yet at the same time, the players of Middle Earth each has free will, and every decision is ultimatly theirs, freely taken. This may sound like a contradiction, but it is not, it is just that with my limited understanding, I cannot reason how it can be. Maybe when I'm old, and know everything, then I'll understand it! I don't think Gollum redeemed himself either though. (He bit off Frodo's finger, nasty little...!!!!) I think it just showed Gandalf's wisdom, and the ultimate sense of Frodo, in doing the right thing and not murdering him.

: : : The Ainur also must have free will, because otherwise, how could Melkor go against the music, (and therefore the will) of Eru.

: : The whole idea of the omniscience of God/free will of Man duality has been deftly swept under the carpet by countless religions. Why can't we do it too?

: : About Melkor's so-called free will in the rebellion. Eru told him after he had modified the theme that he couldn't possibly do ANYTHING that didn't originate in Eru. This only made Melkor more angry. This is also what I mean by the Aninur's lack of free will.

: : When I speak of "free will" in the Ainur, I am not talking about our (humans') idea of free will. When I say that they lack free will, what I mean is more like, "They can't possibly improve upon the designs of Iluvatar, and whenever they try, it causes grief. They should refrain from making decisions whenever possible." It is a sort of self-imposed restriction on free will. But it must be restricted because of the way the universe (Ea) was designed. Because the reason for the restriction was externally imposed, I say that they have a restricted free will.

: The Ainur have free will, in the fullest sense of the concept. Evidence? Melkor, Sauron, the Balrogs, et al. The Valar and the Maiar (the ones loyal to Iluvatar) consult him only rarely. More often they consult each other. But when they do, it out of reverence for his wisdom, a sign of their humility.

: And by the same token, they act in certain limited ways because they are wise, not because they are constrained. (It's kind of like looking at the difference between censorship and self-censorship - the results look the same, but the reasons for it are different.)

: In any case, about the reasons for evil in Arda. Tolkien never answered this question, because he felt it was generally the same reason "evil" is in the real world, namely rebellion against the Christian God.

: One thing people might find interesting is a conversation among the Valar after the rebellion of the Noldor. I don't remember the specifics, but it went something like this: All the Valar were bummed. One of them kind of looked up and began to foresee all the great and glorious deeds that would be done in ME by the Noldor and their allies. And he/she/it said something like the evil acts of the Noldor shall thus be redeemed in some measure, and things end up better for having gone through the experience of evil. To which Mandos replied: "And yet remain evil." (Damn he's cool!)

: So that might give you some kind of hint as to the meaning of evil.

: Another way to think of the "purpose" of evil in Arda as Tolkien envisioned it is to remember the phrase "Oft evil will shall evil mar." It gives a good insight into how Tolkien envisioned evil as a contradictory phenomenon, an entity that grows so bloated that it collapses in on itself. All of the evil in Arda is wrapped up in the concept that it is ultimately futile, but that it cannot be ignored while it exists either.

: The point of it all then becomes what we do while time exists, before the finals days.

: You can think of it this way. Eru, the One, was chillin' out all by himself in the Halls of Ea. So he's been creating different things for time unending, artwork as it were. But for Eru, he creates not merely with matter and space, but with time as well. Pieces of "art" that we can't comprehend. But in a fit of nihilistic enui, he decides that this isn't enough. It's boring, he says (to no one in particular). So he decides to create something fantastic, something amazing, and in this magnum opus, he weaves something new... independent thought. So the world, and everything in it - the mountains, the seas, the skies, the plants, and us with our deeds and our thoughts, our triumphs and our defeats, our happiness and our misery - all becomes a grand tapestry with many weavers. Or a song with many singers, as Tolkien himself describes it.

: OK, enough of me waxing philosophical.

: Dave C-Q

Very cooly put!!!

Kelrochwen.