[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by alatar

Also, to presume Eru's intervention diminishes the roles/sacrifices of Frodo et al.

Not if one assumes that Eru can only intervene indirectly and in circumstances where not to do so would result in the complete victory of those seeking to oppose his will notwithstanding the best efforts of those on the side of good. Although that still leaves open the question of whether the "hand of providence" at Sammath Naur fell within this "Rule" since, even if Sauron prevailed in the face of the best the endeavours of Frodo et al, the Valar could presumably still have sailed east and defeated him. Could it therefore be said to have represented a complete victory on Sauron's part?

Of course, if we do assume that Eru is bound by this "Rule" (whatever its extent) then it must have been self-imposed, since the existence of a being greater than him would run contrary to Tolkien's conception and portrayal of him.

Edit:

Originally Posted by Hookbill

So, in conclusion, Melkor was made evil in order to give men and elves (and hobbits!) the chance to chose between good and evil. So that they could see the difference and have a real choice.

This picks up an alatar's idea that Melkor's fall was part of Eru's plan for Arda. As I understand it, this is similar in some ways to some interpretations of the role of Judas in the Bible (although I am no expert). My problem with this is that it makes Melkor the "fall guy" and condemns him to an existence of evil and terrible suffering without him having any choice (ie free will) in the matter. Which seems at odds with the portrayal of Eru's apporach to creation and with the idea of him as a just and good God.