Was the Ring Meant to Be?

[norain]

The Hobbit will be coming soon to theaters, and I thought about this recently.

Middle Earth, per the Silmarillion, was created by a first-cause-like entity named Eru.

So Bilbo was meant to find the ring.
Frodo was meant to destroy it.
Gandalf was meant to assist him.

All this talk about “meant to”.

But if Eru governed everything and was fully in control, why did he let the Ring come to exist in the first place?

Notice how this question might be looked at as why suffering must be allowed to exist in the world.

 

[Neithan]

The Hobbit will be coming soon to theaters, and I thought about this recently.

Middle Earth, per the Silmarillion, was created by a first-cause-like entity named Eru.

So Bilbo was meant to find the ring.
Frodo was meant to destroy it.
Gandalf was meant to assist him.

All this talk about “meant to”.

But if Eru governed everything and was fully in control, why did he let the Ring come to exist in the first place?

Notice how this question might be looked at as why suffering must be allowed to exist in the world.

Sauron was an angel and acted out of free will by creating the Ring. So Eru would have allowed it. Right?

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

The Hobbit will be coming soon to theaters, and I thought about this recently.

Middle Earth, per the Silmarillion, was created by a first-cause-like entity named Eru.

So Bilbo was meant to find the ring.
Frodo was meant to destroy it.
Gandalf was meant to assist him.

All this talk about “meant to”.

But if Eru governed everything and was fully in control, why did he let the Ring come to exist in the first place?

Notice how this question might be looked at as why suffering must be allowed to exist in the world.

Eru allowed a lot to be done that was not of his craft: Dwarves, Ents, plants, animals, and so on–these were made by the Ainur (the ‘angelic’ race he created first before the world). It stands to reason that he allowed Sauron, who was a Maia, to do whatever pleased him.

You could also think, as I do, that Bilbo, Frodo and Gandalf were “meant” to do this according to Eru’s will. If you recall, it was Eru himself that revived Gandalf after he died facing the Balrog!

 

[Samson01]

The ring is sin. Look it up.

 

[trapper1]

Sauron was an angel and acted out of free will by creating the Ring. So Eru would have allowed it. Right?

Correct.

Some additional backstory that people might find interesting: Sauron, the greatest maiar, was himself was corrupted by Melkor (Lucifer), the greatest valar. Melkor also corrupted the balrogs (fire maia), created the orcs in mockery of the elves, and was responsible for for the Fall of man (which lead to short human lifespands (pre numenor)).

The History of Middle Earth v10 supplements the Simirilian greatly on much of this stuff. The deeper you dig into, the closer middle earth supernatural beings and events align with Christian beliefs.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

The ring is sin. Look it up.

I hope you don’t mean that reading the Lord of the Rings books is a sin. Tolkien was a Catholic, and so long as you relegate it to its proper place as fantasy literature, really really good fantasy literature, then there’s absolutely nothing wrong with reading it and enjoying a good story.

Jesus himself used stories to make a point; all of his parables would, in modern times, be labeled as fiction. He used them to teach a lesson.

Just enjoy a good story for what it is.

created the orcs in mockery of the elves, .

I didn’t think it was in mockery. I thought he detested the elves and believed he could create better. The orcs were his failed attempt. Not so much a mockery as a failed display of hubris.

 

[jediliz]

The ring is sin. Look it up.

And that’s why it was Frodo’s burden, to take it to the fires of Mt Doom

 

[Samson01]

I hope you don’t mean that reading the Lord of the Rings books is a sin. Tolkien was a Catholic, and so long as you relegate it to its proper place as fantasy literature, really really good fantasy literature, then there’s absolutely nothing wrong with reading it and enjoying a good story.

Jesus himself used stories to make a point; all of his parables would, in modern times, be labeled as fiction. He used them to teach a lesson.

Just enjoy a good story for what it is.

I didn’t think it was in mockery. I thought he detested the elves and believed he could create better. The orcs were his failed attempt. Not so much a mockery as a failed display of hubris.

Your joking I hope…If you watched the EWTN doc on the book you may know what I was saying. The ring represents sin according to the commentary.

 

[Samson01]

And that’s why it was Frodo’s burden, to take it to the fires of Mt Doom

I guess…does make sense of the world being distorted by the wearer…the temptations to wear it…or we should burn the herectical book (Lord of the Rings). lol.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Your joking I hope…If you watched the EWTN doc on the book you may know what I was saying. The ring represents sin according to the commentary.

I misunderstood your post. I though you mean that reading the Lord of the Rings books was sinful. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

 

[Samson01]

I misunderstood your post. I though you mean that reading the Lord of the Rings books was sinful. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

It’s alright…I’m just joshing you.
As for the OP. I conclude that if the ring represents sin or original sin…it was not meant to be at first.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

The Hobbit will be coming soon to theaters, and I thought about this recently.

Middle Earth, per the Silmarillion, was created by a first-cause-like entity named Eru.

So Bilbo was meant to find the ring.
Frodo was meant to destroy it.
Gandalf was meant to assist him.

All this talk about “meant to”.

But if Eru governed everything and was fully in control, why did he let the Ring come to exist in the first place?

Notice how this question might be looked at as why suffering must be allowed to exist in the world.

It’s all about Freewill and Predestination, which do not cancel each other out.

Eru is very much the Christian version of God, who hides himself to the extent that the inhabitants of Middle Earth are free to disregard him or follow the path he lays down for them. It is inevitable that some will choose to disregard him, following their own egotistical ambitions, whilst others stay the course, even if not always consciously aware of being on a course.

The will of Eru is that the doings of the evil become part of the course of the good, obliging them sometimes to heroic efforts that make them better than they were before. Hence the development of Frodo, Aragorn, Gandalf, Sam, Pippin and Merry.

 

[Viewscreen]

I always thought that the ring was a good analogy for what Eastern spirituality terms the “ego” (as opposed to Freud’s psychological ego). Basically the false sense of self in humans, what the Christian or Western counterpart might be “sin” or “pride.”

Think about it: the ego can not be destroyed by normal means, because how can you give up who you think you are? Resistance only increases the power of the ego. Just so, Boromir’s to use the ring against its own powers, is self-defeating. All you can really do, is “listen.”

 

[norain]

Viewscreen,

But how does one know who to listen to?

 

[Viewscreen]

Viewscreen,

But how does one know who to listen to?

I meant listen in a figurative sense. Like a Zen meditation.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

The Ring is the distillation into a physical object of the greater part of Sauron’s power. The bearer can use it to a greater or lesser extent depending on his strength of will, but its use will inevitably corrupt the user, enslaving him in evil.

This would seem to correspond to the claiming and exercise of a power that the one exercising it does not have a right to, i.e. a power separate from the ethical framework that protects the one who exercises it. ‘You shall be as gods’ as the Serpent put it. The Ring then, is an image of the first temptation and hence of any temptation to sin - the seizing of a privilege, of control, of an ability, that one is not entitled to.

My two cents worth.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

I always thought that the ring was a good analogy for what Eastern spirituality terms the “ego” (as opposed to Freud’s psychological ego). Basically the false sense of self in humans, what the Christian or Western counterpart might be “sin” or “pride.”

Think about it: the ego can not be destroyed by normal means, because how can you give up who you think you are? Resistance only increases the power of the ego. Just so, Boromir’s to use the ring against its own powers, is self-defeating. All you can really do, is “listen.”

I do not think that ego and sin are equivalent. Ego, as the Eastern religions define it, is the part of the mind that believes it is human, that is our own consciousness. Sin, on the otherhand, is an immoral act that is a transgression against God.

However, you do rightly point out that the ring is an analogy for sin. This is what Tolkien wanted us to think. Boromir failed because he sought to use evil (the ring) to defeat Evil (Sauron), but this cannot be done.

 

[Haerticle]

I do not think that ego and sin are equivalent. Ego, as the Eastern religions define it, is the part of the mind that believes it is human, that is our own consciousness. Sin, on the otherhand, is an immoral act that is a transgression against God.

I think one can make a case that they are related, though. Ego, I guess you could say, is tantamount to extreme self-centeredness. And isn’t that the true source of all sin? I think what Viewscreen is getting at, is sort of the whole serpent eating its own tail idea. I wouldn’t say the ego is diametrically opposed to our humanity. I think it is more a false idea of who we are that results in destructive or ignorant behavior, and this is sin in the Catholic tradition. But, those are just my two cents.

However, you do rightly point out that the ring is an analogy for sin. This is what Tolkien wanted us to think. Boromir failed because he sought to use evil (the ring) to defeat Evil (Sauron), but this cannot be done.

Sometimes, an interpretation for a text allows for multiple meanings that not even the author foresaw. I am just happy LOTR is thematically complex enough to warrant such fascinating and original interpretations!

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

I think one can make a case that they are related, though. Ego, I guess you could say, is tantamount to extreme self-centeredness. And isn’t that the true source of all sin? I think what Viewscreen is getting at, is sort of the whole serpent eating its own tail idea. I wouldn’t say the ego is diametrically opposed to our humanity. I think it is more a false idea of who we are that results in destructive or ignorant behavior, and this is sin in the Catholic tradition. But, those are just my two cents.

Viewscreen & I are talking about a different ego.

 

[Haerticle]

Viewscreen & I are talking about a different ego.

Hmm. Well, in that case I guess I’m clueless.