[The Saucepan Man]

aragornreborn, I agree that Eru is incapable of doing evil, and also that he does not intend evil to occur. The theory that I am exploring is that evil is a necessary part of his divine plan. And, combining these concepts, it follows that evil will always ultimately be defeated. This is consistent with the books as works of fiction. The reader inevitably knows that, although suffering and hardship must be endured along the way, the "good" characters will ultimately prevail. That is the essence of a story such as this.

I am interested that you see Eru as having intervened directly in the Quest to destroy the Ring (and, therefore, Sauron). I had seen his intervention through the presence of the Istari, their purpose being to guide the occupants of ME in their struggle against evil (and Gandalf being the only one of them (as far as we are aware) who sticks to this aim and succesfully follows it through). But, the Istari cannot carry out the task themselves - this must be done by the humans and hobbits, by making choices based upon their free will.

You suggest, however, that Eru intervened more directly, by causing Gollum to slip at the vital moment. But, if he was able to intervene in this way, why did he not do so earlier, for example by causing Isildur to slip, or to drop the Ring, when he stood on the edge of Orodruin? Perhaps because the subsequent years of evil had to be endured to allow humans (and hobbits) to reach their full potential?

(By way of an aside, while Gollum can, I think, be described as an instrument of evil, being driven by his desire for the Ring, it is possibly unfair to describe him as having had a choice in this matter. I see him as having been under the influence of the Ring (and therefore denied free will) from the moment it came into his life. Perhaps it might be said that he was weak-willed, since he came under its influence so quickly and so easily.)

On reflection, I think you are right on the question of whether Eru intervened directly. If it is correct to say that it was his will that good would triumph in the end, then there was always a possibility that he would have to intervene to ensure that this did indeed happen. But, then again, doesn't that run against the concept of free will, ie that evil had to be defeated through the exercise of free will?

Now I'm getting myself confused. [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]