[davem]

Originally Posted by Alatar

If Melkor was not part of the original plan, then Iluvatar is not omniscient and therefore may not be 'God,' or at least an all-knowing all-powerful one.

Well, one has to distinguish between Eru's plan & Eru's omniscience. The fact that Eru is omniscient merely means he knows what will be, not that he planned it. Eru's omniscience does not deny free will to any of His creatures - they are free to do as they will, but Eru, existing outside space-time & seeing past-present-future from an eternal 'now', knows what they will do. Knowing this, he can take what they do into account & choose what to do about it - in other words, He can alter his original plan to take into account the actions of His creatures, but that doesn't alter the fact that his original plan (the form it had when it arose in His mind) did not include Melkor's rebellion.

I think that Iluvatar bet ("played dice" ) that by giving Melkor all of the abilities of the other Valar that he would be prideful, rebel, create new music and in the end fulfill Iluvatar's intentions of creating things more wonderful than Iluvatar could have achieved sans Melkor.

Problem with this is that Melkor suffered as a result of his pride & his resulting rebellion. If Eru had intended his rebellion He must also have intended his suffering, making him 'evil', or at best amoral. On the other hand, if Eru simply made use of Melkor's free choices, while notintending them, he remains 'Good', as Melkor's suffering is a consequence of his own freely willed choices.

Originally Posted by Obloquy

God isn't just "good" because he never makes an error that leads to bad, he is the ultimate good because that's what he chooses to define himself as. He is the arbiter on a tier above the two sides.

One could argue that rather than 'Eru is 'Good'' we should say 'Good' is Eru' - ie 'Good' is whatever Eru says it is? (Eru as a kind of divine Humpty-dumpty - 'When I use a word it means exactly what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less'). I don't think this works in the context of Middle earth, as there is a(n unstated) 'natural law', a moral code which is logically consistent & understandable. In short, Eru is not a chaotic but intelligent 'force', acting arbitrarily. At the very least 'Good' & evil (as Aragorn points out to Eomer) do not change over the years.

If 'Good' was simply what Eru decided it was at any particular juncture, then how could a man judge what was Good & what was evil. The fact that within Middle earth a man can judge 'as he always has done' (& as his ancestors similarly had done) implies that there is some kind of objective standard of what constitutes the 'Good'. Now, in Middle earth there is no equivalent of the Bible or the Quran, & 'right' & 'wrong, Good & evil are simply known (& either accepted or rejected) by each individual. This can only be because each individual, having their ultimate origin in the Mind of Eru, has 'inherited' something of that divinity (the individual fea), & knows the difference between right & wrong. If Eru's 'values' are simply arbitrary then each individual's value system (in a world without revelation) would be equally arbitrary - but we know that this is not the case. There is no equivalent to the Ten Commandments in Middle earth, so the fact that there is a general agreement on what constitutes the 'Good' means that it must be logically consistent, & it must make sense to live by it (ie it must provide some kind of social benefit).

Which brings me to what what you say about Eru 'choosing' to define Himself as 'Good'. Does this mean that He has made a choice to be Good but could equally well have chosen to be 'evil'? Wouldn't this mean that Good & evil are moral 'equivalents' neither one more valid than the other? Perhaps on the 'cosmic' level, but on the level of day to day reality 'good' behaviour benefits the greatest number of people & harms the least number. Yet if Ea is structured in such a way that this is the case, & Ea arose in the mind of Eru, as part of His original plan, one can only assume that this 'choice' was made because in His omniscience, knowing Good & evil, He saw that 'Good' was better.

Of course, one cannot assume at all that He made such a 'choice' - maybe the 'Good' is a reflection of His nature - ie, He is 'Good', His nature corresponds to an objective standard of 'Goodness'.

(Its amazing what rubbish one produces when one is bored )