[Raynor]

Frodo's above average knowledge (hobbit-wise) of things makes him a wiser person, but not necessarily a better one.

The argument wasn't that he was better, only that he had what it takes to recognize something as sinful or not; he considered them to be able to overcome any horror, by grace and refusal to compromise or submit - I see in both these a sign of their faith.

I'm not ignoring the underlying struggle between good and evil, but if we take the LotR alone, then it's not clear where 'good' comes from. It's just there. You can feel that there's some "higher force" behind certain events, but though it's clear what Tolkien meant that to be, I don't think it is unambiguous to an unbiased reader.

I don't share your view, which doesn't mean I don't respect it. I don't know what an unbiased reader is, what kind of background one would require to qualify as such - for all I know you and I could be looking at the same thing, be it a flower or whatnot, and interpret it in completely different ways. Imo, we have various events, and actual referrences, made by characters throughout the story or by scribes in the appendices, which identify the source of good (even Sauron is said by Gandalf, in the Last Debate, to be only a servant or emissary). While the religious truths appear "not in the known form of the primary 'real' world" (the alternative we know that Tolkien considered to be a fatal mistake) they are there. And I think we should also take into consideration that the separation between LotR and Silmarillion was not one Tolkien intended - he actually stated in letter #124 that LotR is a sequel to the Sil, not the Hobbit.

My work has escaped from my control, and I have produced a monster: an immensely long, complex, rather bitter, and very terrifying romance, quite unfit for children (if fit for anybody); and it is not really a sequel to The Hobbit, but to The Silmarillion.
...
...though shelved (until a year ago), the Silmarillion and all that has refused to be suppressed. It has bubbled up, infiltrated, and probably spoiled everything (that even remotely approached 'Faery') which I have tried to write since. It was kept out of Farmer Giles with an effort, but stopped the continuation. Its shadow was deep on the later pans of The Hobbit. It has captured The Lord of the Rings, so that that has become simply its continuation and completion, requiring the Silmarillion to be fully intelligible – without a lot of references and explanations that clutter it in one or two places.

Ridiculous and tiresome as you may think me, I want to publish them both – The Silmarillion and The Lord of the Rings – in conjunction or in connexion.

Originally Posted by Letter #126

I had in my letter made a strong point that the Silmarillion etc. and The Lord of the Rings went together, as one long Saga of the Jewels and the Rings, and that I was resolved to treat them as one thing, however they might formally be issued.)

The Silmarillion explains the nature of Shelob, the balrog, many things of the Council of Elrond, the referrence to Earendil, Elbereth, high-elves, etc; we have the Silmarillion now, just as his author intended and, in his letters, he directed many of his readers to it. To treat them separately, to interpret one while disregarding the other, doesn't, Imo, do justice. We may be free to do so, but, at least nowadays, I believe it amounts to an argument from willful ignorance.