[Hookbill the Goomba]

I think davem has a point. To raise, again, one of my favorite writers, C.S. Lewis, in his book, 'The Problem of Pain' he says something along the lines of this:

Originally Posted by C.S. Lewis: The Problem of Pain

If God were to prevent anything, bad from happening then what would our lives be like? To be offered a choice in anything would be pointless because one choice would lead to nothing and so wouldn't be a choice at all because God would stop it from happening. Likewise, it would be impossible to insult someone or say anything that might (intended or otherwise) offend or hurt someone because God would have to put a stop to our vocal cords from being able to form such a phrase or statement. By the same logic, evil thought would be prevented, meaning that the membranes and things would be severed from making the connections necessary to form a thought that might be bad.
Omnipotence means: "Power to do all" or "everything". Many argue that 'If God were real and good he would do such and such', if one were to argue back that this would be impossible, we are met with the answer "But I thought God could do everything." This raises the question of what 'impossibility' is. How often do we hear the word 'impossible' attached to the word 'unless'?
For example, it is impossible for me to see the street from where I am sitting... that is, it is impossible unless I am to walk over to another room with a window that overlooks the street. If, however, I had broken my legs, I should say 'it is impossible to go to the other room' that is, 'it is impossible... unless some friends come over who would be willing to carry me'.
So, it is impossible to see the street so long as I stay where I am and the intervening walls remain where they are. Someone might add, 'unless the nature of space or vision were changed so that you could see around corners.' I do not know how the best physicists would reply, but I should say, "I don't know if space and time could possibly be of such a nature as you suggest." Here the words 'could possibly' obviously refer to some kind of ultimate possibility or impossibility, which is different to relative possibility. I do not know if seeing around corners is impossible or not because I do not know if it is self-contradictory or not. But if it is self contradictory, then it is absolutely impossible. The absolutely impossible may also be called the intrinsically impossible because it carries its impossibility in itself. It has no 'unless'. It is impossible in all worlds and for all agents.
God's omnipotence is power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not nonsense. You may attribute miracles to him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to his power. If you say, "God can give a creature free will and at the same time take it away" you have not said anything about God. Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire meaning because we attribute them to God.
We must also remember that human reasoners often make mistakes, by either arguing from false data or other means. We may then come to think things possible that are impossible and vice versa. One needs great wisdom to define what these intrinsic impossibilities are.

So what do people expect of God then? For him to take away everything that makes us who we are? Stop us from having experiences and such so that we never learn from mistakes or otherwise? Or do people just want a God that is indifferent or says, "What does it matter if they are good or Bad? As long as they are happy!" so what they really want is less a Father in heaven, more a Grandfather, a senile old man giving out sweets indifferent to all. For, of course, one man may find great pleasure in the torture of another or the throwing of insults, which means that the other party would not feel pleasure but pain. What is to happen here?
Some say that they wish God would just leave us alone and to our own devises in order to seek out our own happiness (a thing in itself we cannot define, really). It seems that people do not want more love from God, but less. If a father sees a son playing with matches and the child is very happy in itself, will he not take the matches from him lest he burn himself thought the child may feel that he is unfairly treated or had had a great asset taken from him?

I have abridged it, of course. The whole argument is... well... as long as a book.

Whether or not one can associate Lewis' theology with Tolkien's world I do not know. I know that Lewis apparently read much of The Problem of Pain out to the Inklings so, if nothing else, Tolkien may well have been aware of it and very possibly influenced by it.

We, of course, cannot say for certain.