Doh! I realised soon after I posted my contribution above that, by intervening to ensure the destruction of the Ring, Eru is denying Sauron his free will in the same way that he would have denied Melkor his free will had he not allowed the "tainted blueprint" of Arda to come into being.
Hmm. Perhaps Eru's intervention is only justified when its effect is to avert circumstances which would otherwise inevitably result in a total victory for the forces of evil. Which would justify his intervention in the tunnels under the Misty Mountains, since otherwise the Ring would almost certainly have found its way back to Sauron. But that does not explain why Eru chose Bilbo to find it and seemingly ordained Frodo to destroy it.
Quote:
|
Reason not withstanding, Hobbits had an incredible resistance to the rings power, A Dwarf may have not had the will or strength to even take up the challenge, only one with the simplicity and innocence of a Hobbit could do the deed
|
I most certainly agree with that,
Hookbill. I have always considered Hobbits to have a peculiar resistance to the effects of the Ring and therefore the most suitable candidates for Ringbearer (although not proto-Hobbits, as Smeagol's miserable life shows us). But this brings us back to the question posed by
davem some while back: how can Eru be justified in choosing Frodo for the task in circumstances in which he (Frodo) cannot possibly concieve the scale of the loss which he will suffer in carrying it out, and in which, once the Ring comes into his possession, he really has very little choice in the matter (if Sauron's victory is to be averted).
Perhaps it just comes down to the fact that, unless Eru had taken it upon himself to destroy the Ring by direct intervention (a serious negation of free will), someone had to do it. And, of all the available candidates, perhaps Frodo was best suited to the task.