Quote:
|
Originally Posted by littlemanpoet
If such objections come to mind, please note that I have simply used logic to reach the only conclusion that can be reached.
|
Not really.
Eru is good. Eru destroys Númenor. All the inhabitants die. If there were innocents among those, then, according to the sense of justice I think at least most of us share, this was not a just act. Therefore: If Eru kills innocents, Eru cannot be
entirely good (
that's the negation of 'Eru is good'
). Indeed we have two assumptions here (Eru is good, Eru killed innocents) which cannot be both true at the same time.
So, were there innocents? Well, it's not stated directly in the text, but there must have been children, even babies, on Númenor at the time. According to our sense of justice again, these are innocents. And if Eru killed them, he cannot be entirely good. (If you think the children weren't innocent, it means we don't share the same sense of justice (could be...) and use different measures for 'good')
Is it even possible that Eru isn't entirely good? I think so. After all, Melkor was an offspring of his thought, and Melkor's dischords had their source in Eru as well, as is stated. One could argue that even the Marring of Arda was, in a way, intended by Eru. This might lead to far, though. All I want to show is that it is possible that Eru is not entirely good. I can easily imagine that he was subject to, for example, wrath. I don't think this would make him less praiseworthy.