[Thenamir]

In answer to Saucy's question, I do not find that the compassion and kindness of Eru is incompatible with the story of the downfall of Numenor in the Akallabêth.

To quote something I said a long time ago in a wholly different thread on a barely related topic,

Originally Posted by A Much Younger Thenamir

When an all-wise, all-powerful, and all-compassionate Ilúvatar who has your best interests in mind says to you "Don't go there," then it isn't self-actualization, or rugged individualism, or even free-thinking to go there anyway -- it is probably suicide.

If you have laws, you have sanctions or penalties for breaking that law. To say that Eru Ilúvatar is not loving or compassionate because He enforces the rules He lays down is a fundamental fallacy. He didn't make rules for sport, or to prevent men from receiving good things, or to rain on their parties. The Ban was there for their good.
He warned,

And he sent messengers to the Dúnedain, who spoke earnestly to the King, and to all who would listen, concerning the fate and fashion of the world....it is not the land of Manwë that makes its people deathless, but the Deathless that dwell therein have hallowed the land; and there you would but wither and grow weary the sooner, as moths in a light too strong and steadfast.

He gave signs,

out of the west there would come at times a great cloud in the evening, shaped as it were an eagle, with pinions spread to the north and the south; and slowly it would loom up, blotting out the sunset, and then uttermost night would fall upon Númenor. And some of the eagles bore lightning beneath their wings, and thunder echoed between sea and cloud

He even slew some of them, which was then unheard of,

the lightnings increased and slew men upon the hills, and in the fields, and in the streets of the city

He did everything that he could do short of blunt coercion to get them to choose the right way. When they *chose* to listen to Sauron instead of Eru, to violate the Ban of the Valar, then Eru set the consequences (the sanctions of penalties of the law) in motion. Those who saw what was coming and took heed, Amandil and Elendil and all their company, and were saved from the destruction.

RE: Denying their free will. It has been said here that by killing them Eru is effectively removing their free will. That is quite correct. He allowed them to exercise their free will right up until the time that they violated his command. Just as we do -- we don't arrest criminals *before* they commit the crimes. But once they cross that line, the authority (whether it's Eru, a Shire bounder, or your local policeman) steps in to stop you, apprehend you, and remove your freedom to act further.

When you have an incorrigible child, you take away his free-will to act by putting him in his corner or his room, or perhaps you give them the child's "death penalty", a good spanking, in hopes that you can change his will, his self-destructive direction. When you have an incorrigble adult criminal, you take away his free will to act by either jailing him or executing him. When you have an incorrigible nation, as an omnipotent and all compassionate deity, you could possibly jail them, perhaps put up some kind of barrier around Numenor so that they cannot infect the rest of the world. But then you will have generation after generation, getting (as humanity generally does) worse and worse, going from lesser evils to greater ones, even if it's just amongst themselves. Or you can execute them -- bring the civilization to a screetching halt.

How, you ask, is this not cruel? Which is the more cruel, to allow countless thousands of lives to be born, live in evil and misery, and die?

they were become quick to anger, and Sauron, or those whom he had bound to himself, went about the land setting man against man, so that the people murmured against the King and the lords, or against any that had aught that they had not; and the men of power took cruel revenge.

they came no longer as bringers of gifts, nor even as rulers, but as fierce men of war. And they hunted the men of Middle-earth and took their goods and enslaved them, and many they slew cruelly upon their altars.

in that temple, with spilling of blood and torment and great wickedness, men made sacrifice to Melkor that he should release them from Death. And most often from among the Faithful they chose their victims

Or to prevent that inevitability and forebear that future misery by cutting off and cauterizing that festering and rotted piece of the world forever? Remember, Eru is not a fallible man who can, as sometimes happens in our legal systems, convict and execute the wrong person -- He can see the inevitable results of inaction. What you *don't* do is allow intractible evil to forever interfere and trample down the good. At some point, the arm or leg has to be amputated in order to save what remains. Honestly, I don't understand the problem here.

Re: Killing innocent children. Children will be raised by their parents to follow in their footsteps. The evil is not that the children were playing at pretending to be orcs, it was that the parents didn't stop them. You cannot ignore the upbringing of children in how they will turn out -- as the twig is bent, so grows the tree. With Sauron there to continually egg them on, the entire society would go from bad to worse, or else end up destroying themselves. Were the parents killed and the children allowed to live (the dream of every angst-ridden teenager), they would only grow up with the memory of their parents' instruction, and rise up again in rebellion.

Lastly -- I have been mentally goaded into making this post against my better judgement. I feel that this post will change no minds, that it has said nothing really new. I've said all I want to say on this subject, and will gladly hear the rebuttals and counter-arguments which will come whether I like them or not. I am not so self-deluded that I think I have all the answers here. I will hear what has to be said, and will consider it thoughtfully. But I will not tilt at windmills.